site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   22646 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The FBI this morning arrested a Wisconsin state judge on charges of concealing an illegal alien from arrest.

The initial criminal complaint is here. For those of you who prefer to watch TV instead of read, here is attorney general Pam Bondi giving the details on Fox News. The accusation is that upon seeing federal agents waiting outside her courtroom to serve an administrative warrent for the arrest of Eduardo Flores-Ruiz (who is an illegal alien currently being charged with battery), Judge Hannah Dugan escorted Flores-Ruiz out of the courtroom through the jury door so that he could evade arrest.

For all of the "Kash Patel Arrests Judge" headlines I saw this morning, this seems totally fine? It looks like an open and shut case if the facts alleged in the complaint are true. It sounds like there ought to be plenty of witnesses (it literally took place in a courthouse). State-law judges don't have jurisdiction over federal agents executing federal functions. An illegal alien in court for an unrelated violent crime is an incredibly unsympathetic defendant. All of the smarter left-leaning commentators I follow seem to be keeping quiet on this, which seems smart.

The most shocking thing here is all the beauty filters Fox News is applying to Pam Bondi's face. The news channel should have some self respect; if they're not willing to show the truth on what Bondi actually looks like how can we trust they are telling the truth on anything else?

And yes, this judge should be charged and sentenced according to the law.

all the beauty filters

You sure it isn't makeup?

For some reason we've decided that manipulating peoples' perceptions by changing the physical objects they're looking at is acceptable, while manipulating peoples' perceptions by changing the images directly isn't.

See also fast food commercials. They are (or at least were) genuine footage of actual objects...which were only superficially related to the food they sold.

If it's makeup it's the film stage set voodoo makeup which makes people look decades younger rather than ordinary makeup you do by yourself at home

A lot of news anchors basically wear a latex mask that is then painted to look human. They aren't in any position to call out the guests.

Expensive makeup gets away with being expensive because it works. People going on TV pay some professional to do their makeup because the results are worth it.

A lot of news anchors basically wear a latex mask that is then painted to look human

This is news to me and sounds hard to believe. Also Gemini thinks it is False, source?

In asia perhaps, they love the fake nose bridge prosthetic makeup

The news channel should have some self respect; if they're not willing to show the truth on what Bondi actually looks like how can we trust they are telling the truth on anything else?

That video is 360p and Youtube will not let me increase the resolution. Which makes your complaint a nothingburger.

360p doesn't make a 60 year old look 25.

It smooths out fine details, so it pretty much does, since you can't see skin wrinkles, at least not easily (and it's compressed, besides).

Found higher quality video at 720p here: https://www.foxnews.com/video/6371935854112

Also available here on youtube: https://youtube.com/watch?v=pHXo18bFo64

Bondi still looks 25 facially but in this video you can see the dried out neck more clearly showing her true age.

Either it's makeup or she had a hydrafacial appointment in the last 24 hours (can personally recommend). That's the only think I know of which can make tired and aged skin look so radiant.

State-law judges don't have jurisdiction over federal agents executing federal functions.

The question is if they are required to render aid to federal law enforcement. Based on the warrant, it is generally illegal to "conceal an individual to prevent his discovery or arrest" and "obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the US". The latter requires corruption, force, or threats. The former seems prone to selective enforcement, I can't imagine the DA going after every grandma who conceals her grandson from the cops.

The affidavit states that it is very convenient for ICE to arrest people in courthouses because they know that they will be unarmed. This is of course the equilibrium if the worst thing which can happen to you in a court house is getting arrested for whatever crime you are accused of in the first place. Few fugitives accused of murder answer their court summons, after all. If the worst thing which can happen to you in a courthouse is getting shipped to some hellish megaprison in some country where human rights just are not a thing, then you might think twice about appearing in court unarmed. And while the affidavit claims that so far, ICE is restricting this practice to criminal defendants, it might already have a chilling effect on witnesses and participants in civil cases.

If an accused is willing to show up in court when summoned, that is saving the state system the resources they would otherwise have to spend on tracking, arresting and imprisoning that person. If the feds freeload on the state system, in the end it will be state police who will have to spend a lot of resources on tracking illegals wanted for some minor infraction like they are wanted for murder.

Of course, some other judge signed the arrest warrant, so it seems somewhat likely that they will make that one stick.

FWIW, 1505 reads:

Blablabla Antitrust Civil Process Act blablabla or Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress— Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, blablabla

1071 reads:

Whoever harbors or conceals any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States, so as to prevent his discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for the apprehension of such person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; except that if the warrant or process issued on a charge of felony, or after conviction of such person of any offense, the punishment shall be a fine under this title, or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

From my layman's perspective, I think that it is probably more likely that they will get her for 1071. Escorting a known fugitive through a non-public area seems the kind of thing which qualifies.

For 1505, she obviously did not use threats or force, so she would have acted corruptly. Now, if she had learned in her function as a judge that there was a investigation against her defendant and then proceeded to warn him about that, this would be a textbook case of corruption.

However, it does not seem clear-cut that she learned of this due to her function as a judge.

The courtroom deputy observed Attorney A (the individual who had photographed the agents) enter and approach Judge DUGAN’s clerk. Attorney A stated that there appeared to be ICE agents in the hallway. Attorney A told the clerk where the agents were seated and what they were wearing. [...] The courtroom deputy reported that the clerk then got up and talked with Judge DUGAN.

Arguably, this constitutes a chain of gossip, not a formal court communication. (Of course, it could be that things learned through gossip are also subject to 1505, like if a cop learned through gossip that another cop was planning an arrest.) But then she proceeds to use her power as a judge to get the confirmation about who they are after, which seems really stupid of her -- because she no longer can claim that she did not know of the arrest warrant. So it seems likely that they will get her for that, too, if the FBI agent's account is substantially correct.

Now, if she had learned in her function as a judge that there was an investigation against her defendant and then proceeded to warn him about that, this would be a textbook case of corruption.

“Corruptly” there just means that she is doing that willfully, with improper purpose. It does not have anything to do with corruption as in misuse of the office. See eg this. This charge clearly applies given the allegations.

It seems that you are leaving off the very first paragraph of Section 1505, which precedes the one you posted. It reads:

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

It would seem to me that if they can establish the alleged facts, it clearly fits under "removes from any place, conceals, covers up". It does not contain the required element of corruption which you wrote about, just "intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance".

I just abbreviated them:

Blablabla Antitrust Civil Process Act blablabla or [....]

Let me try to parse this.

  • [subject] Whoever,

    • [intent] with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act,

  • [act] willfully

    • withholds,

    • misrepresents,

    • removes from any place,

    • conceals,

    • covers up,

    • destroys,

    • mutilates,

    • alters,

    • or by other means falsifies

  • [object of act]

    • any documentary material,

    • answers to written interrogatories,

    • or oral testimony,

  • [required attribute of object] which is the subject of such demand [e.g. of the ACPA];

  • [alternative act] or attempts to do so

  • [alternative act] or solicits another to do so

So, for that paragraph to apply, we require

a) a civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act

b) someone acting with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance to that demand

c) that someone doing bad things to materials, interrogatories or testimony related to that demand (or incites others or attempts that).

To my knowledge, there was no ACPA demand, the judge did not act to obstruct compliance with such a demand, and a person is not a valid object to act on to fulfill the act being criminalized by that paragraph.

It looks to me that this is meant to criminalize "oh shit, we are under anti-trust investigation. Let us quickly shred all the documents, or cook our books". In one dimension it is extremely broad (anyone can commit it), but it requires intent (which is often hard to prove) and pertains only to something very specific (demands under the ACPA).

I have no clue why the hell Congress would put that specific case of destruction of evidence (of which there are certainly more, my guess is that you will also go to jail for shredding evidence you are required to surrender in labor, racketeering, or environmental investigations -- just not under that statue) with obstruction of justice.

Wasn’t there a New Mexico judge too?

It looks like an open and shut case if the facts alleged in the complaint are true.

Not really. There are two issues here one legal and one practical. As far as legal arguments go, the problems is that it isn't clear if what she did was actually illegal. She was charged with violating §1505 (Obstructing an Official Proceeding) and §1071 (Concealing and individual to prevent discovery or arrest). The Obstructing part is problematic because what the judge did doesn't fit into anything that's actually described under the obstruction statutes. chapter 73 of the US Criminal Code has 21 sections, and while §1505 doesn't specifically define obstruction, the sections that do make references to things like destroying documents, intimidating witnesses, bribery, and suborning perjury. Nowhere does it mention helping someone avoid apprehension by Federal agents. You can make the argument that a plain reading of the statutory language suggests that it would cover this, but the Supreme Court explicitly rejected such and argument in Fischer, saying that the context of §1512 made it clear that the statute only applied to the destruction of documents. In any event, I couldn't find any examples of §1505 being used this way before. I'm not saying this isn't going to work, but it certainly isn't open and shut.

Prosecuting under §1071 is even more of an uphill battle. Everything I could find suggests that it only applies to criminal warrants, such as the diffeing penalties for whether the concealed person is being charged with a felony or a misdemeanor. Immigration proceedings aren't criminal proceedings, though, but administrative proceedings. Again, I couldn't find any evidence of §1071 being used for an administrative proceeding.

From a practical perspective, ICE fucked up by attempting to detain the guy before his case was resolved. Typically, when a Mexican national commits a violent crime in the United States and then flees to Mexico, we don't leave it at that; we specifically request that the Mexican government extradite him for prosecution here. If he gets deported this is just the administration facilitating his escape. It may not be what he wants, personally, but even for minor crimes, the normal course of business for a criminal defendant in custody awaiting deportation is for the attorneys to request he be released from ICE custody pending the resolution of the case. This is true even for minor offenses like drunk driving, where the defendant is typically out on bail.

So even if this guy is out on bail on domestic battery charges, deporting him to Mexico makes his case impossible to prosecute, and even if ICE is willing to allow him to return for court appearances, it's impossible for the court to monitor his compliance with bail conditions, and he has little incentive to return to the US for criminal prosecution. The ideal situation, from a criminal justice perspective, is to allow him to stay in Wisconsin until his case is either dismissed or his sentence complete, and then begin deportation proceedings. By deporting him now, you only get half a loaf.

From a practical perspective, ICE fucked up by attempting to detain the guy before his case was resolved. Typically, when a Mexican national commits a violent crime in the United States and then flees to Mexico, we don't leave it at that; we specifically request that the Mexican government extradite him for prosecution here. If he gets deported this is just the administration facilitating his escape. It may not be what he wants, personally, but even for minor crimes, the normal course of business for a criminal defendant in custody awaiting deportation is for the attorneys to request he be released from ICE custody pending the resolution of the case. This is true even for minor offenses like drunk driving, where the defendant is typically out on bail.

This isn't how this usually works. ICE will go through the rigamarole of bringing someone back for some very serious felonies like murder and other Class X (or A, or 1 depending on what state we are talking about) violent felonies. They aren't bringing someone back for a DV unless someone was at least seriously permanently disfigured. In this specific case the case number is 2025CM000814. Although I am not a Wisconsin criminal attorney, I have >90% confidence that stands for "Criminal Misdemeanor" as it does in dozens of jurisdictions I am more familiar with.

In fact, the bail issue is why ICE probably detained him instead of letting the case go to pendency. If he was a murderer, ICE could be fairly confident Wisconsin's courts and law enforcement would detain him, or put him on EM+home confinement or something similar. Instead, his paltry DV charge means he will be walking around Wisconsin for months, if not years only for the victim to probably recant and/or for him to be sentenced to something like 12 months of court supervision. All that time he will have freedom to flee from ICE. ICE also simply doesn't have the space and manpower to detain him themselves and bring him to all his court appearances. Of course defendant's attorneys request that ICE let the case be resolved prior to detention. 1, that is how they get paid, and 2, its ultimately a lot better for their client, PARTICULARLY with misdemeanors. One of the worst things for an illegal alien is to miss court because you got deported because then the next time you get a traffic ticket (and lets be honest you will, that's probably how you got caught in the first place for whatever case you are in court for) there will be a warrant for your arrest. Then you get sent back to that courtroom and ICE can find you all over again. If you clear up the DUI, then get deported, you can sneak right back in and local law enforcement won't run you through the list of deported persons, while the would have run you through the list of nationwide warrants.

So even if this guy is out on bail on domestic battery charges, deporting him to Mexico makes his case impossible to prosecute, and even if ICE is willing to allow him to return for court appearances, it's impossible for the court to monitor his compliance with bail conditions, and he has little incentive to return to the US for criminal prosecution. The ideal situation, from a criminal justice perspective, is to allow him to stay in Wisconsin until his case is either dismissed or his sentence complete, and then begin deportation proceedings. By deporting him now, you only get half a loaf.

There really is no loaf for criminal justice in these charges. He's certain to get minimal to no punishment. The only purpose not deporting him serves is to enable his escape. And again, his failure to appear is kind of a hidden benefit because a more reasonable judge (obviously this one would not) would put out a warrant for his arrest and if he ever came back he'd be right back in that courtroom.

Prosecuting under §1071 is even more of an uphill battle. Everything I could find suggests that it only applies to criminal warrants, such as the diffeing penalties for whether the concealed person is being charged with a felony or a misdemeanor.

Why? The text of the statute refers to "any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States". The text seems pretty broad. Any valid federal warrant must be issued under the provisions of a law of the United States right? Or am I missing something?

EDIT: Also, wouldn't 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(3) apply? Does having ICE agents show up and present an administrative warrant count as knowledge or reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law?

The issue is that an administrative warrant doesn't really count as a warrant. The whole point of warrant requirements in most situations is that a neutral party (i.e., a judge) has the opportunity to review the evidence and determine that certain actions are, well, warranted. An administrative warrant is issued by the enforcing agency itself, and as such has certain limitations. Most notably for our purposes, ICE agents with an administrative warrant can't enter a private residence to look for a subject the way normal police executing an actual arrest warrant can. So if you're my roommate and you're hiding from ICE and they show up at the door and I answer I can simply tell them to go fuck themselves and there's nothing they can do about it. Since this is the case, they usually have to resort to ruses like pretending they need a guy to sign for a package or acting like they're local police (without actually pretending to be local police) in order to get the guy to come to the door.

Since it's widely recognized that a judge's courtroom is a private area, upon learning that the agents only had an administrative warrant, she told them they couldn't do anything in her courtroom and would have to arrest him in one of the common areas of the courthouse. And she was accordingly under no obligation to make sure that the guy got into the common areas of the courthouse, anymore than a roommate is under an obligation to allow ICE agents inside.

As for §1324, I'm not going to comment on that since the judge wasn't charged under that statute. It's possible it could apply here, but I don't know.

Dugan was under no obligation to permit ICE in her courtroom but she exceeded passive refusal into affirmative acts of concealment and harboring when she warned Flores-Ruiz and escorted him through the jury door. You don't have to let ICE in, you can't warn your roommate and say "I'll keep them busy while you book it." She should face those as charges in addition to obstruction.

So if you're my roommate and you're hiding from ICE and they show up at the door and I answer I can simply tell them to go fuck themselves and there's nothing they can do about it.

What Judge Dugan is alleged to have done is basically this, so... seems like she's in the clear.

Kind of surprised a federal judge signed off on her arrest.

Kind of surprised a federal judge signed off on her arrest.

How likely are federal judges to sign off on "contempt of cop" arrests? I would guess "not very," but perhaps that's wrong or the judge happened to be a bad one. Even if we accept that she didn't commit a statutory violation, "you may beat the wrap, but you can't beat the ride," and the Trump administration seems to be embracing "the process is the punishment."

The Obstructing part is problematic because what the judge did doesn't fit into anything that's actually described under the obstruction statutes. chapter 73 of the US Criminal Code has 21 sections, and while §1505 doesn't specifically define obstruction, the sections that do make references to things like destroying documents, intimidating witnesses, bribery, and suborning perjury.

After the January 6 charges, there can't possibly be any limits on "obstructing an official proceeding".

You missed the reference to Fisher, which is is described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_v._United_States That was the January 6 case where the Supreme Court placed limits on “obstructing an official proceeding.”

Well, the Supreme Court ruled that there are. If the court had ruled differently, we could have that discussion, but they didn't so here we are.

Paragraph 23 is about Judge Dugan asking if the warrant was judicial and saying a judicial warrant was necessary, after being informed that the arrest team had an administrative warrant.

If Flores-Ruiz had been in state custody, I'd think this was a state vs fed issue, with the state wanting to preserve its ability to prosecute the intrastate crime. Since he wasn't in state custody, the intention is unclear, so I'm curious what Dugan's motive was and how she will defend herself.

An illegal alien in court for an unrelated violent crime is an incredibly unsympathetic defendant.

H. L. Mencken:

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

I've commented multiple times that I support both mass deportation and due process for illegal immigrants. A defendant being unsympathetic is irrelevant.

Wow.

Is it normal for ICE to bring along a pair of FBI officers and another pair of CBP guys? Were they expecting trouble? Either way, it paid off. Doesn’t sound like they’d have caught the guy without an extra officer who hadn’t been recognized.

The only way I can see this falling apart is if the “courtroom deputy” turned out to be lying. But enough of his testimony is confirmed that it seems awfully unlikely.

About 2 weeks ago ICE arrested 2 people at the same mikwaukee courthouse and it caused a lot of pushback. They were probably expecting trouble. Also some were plainclothes, they went unnoticed when judge dugan told the rest they needed to talk to the cheif judge. Them going unnoticed and hanging back by the courtroom is how they caught the guy going out the side door.

Six members of the Milwaukee ICE ERO Task Force planned to take part in the arrest of Flores-Ruiz on April 18, 2025. This included ICE ERO Deportation Officer A, Customs and Border Protection Officer A, FBI Special Agents A and B, and Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) Special Agents A and B. The agents were generally dressed in plain clothes and intended to effectuate the arrest in as low-key and safe of a manner as possible.

No ATF? No FEMA? Not even the Coast Guard or the Marshall service? How could a mere six agents from only four federal agencies possibly hope to prevail against an unarmed immigrant?

And no, I checked, the badge of the "ERO Task Force" features a DHS seal with an eagle, not a scantly clad manga girl. Missed opportunity there. Sad!

I mean, the facts bore out that this was an operation conducted in hostile territory. They really did need the help.

I could not possibly be in more agreement with you.

Everyone knows arrests are Constitutionally required to be fair fights. The fascists have arrived like bullies, like they always do, using strength of numbers to abuse the innocent and violate their rights.

It has happened before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v.Joseph(2019)

Not very likely that it will lead to guilty verdict. Probably will be a slap on wrist.

Maybe it is a bet that now times are different. I don't know but I tend to think that this bet will fail and it will be another loss of popularity to Trump administration. They are total losers who are on a fast track to self destruction. Good luck to them!

I tend to think that this bet will fail and it will be another loss of popularity to Trump administration. They are total losers who are on a fast track to self destruction. Good luck to them!

Why did I hear that in Stephen Colbert's Trump-tweet impression voice...?

I don't know him.

But I cannot imagine this judge to be given a guilty verdict or sentenced. At most, she will get a plea bargain with some corrective penalties. In the current climate this is proxy war between Trump and judiciary. And judiciary thinks that Trump is just trying to rob accused of a due process and that judge was right to prevent it. Even if it will not be how legal arguments will go, all members of judiciary will think that way and it will greatly influence the outcome of any proceedings.

I don't know him.

American late-night comedy host; would sometimes read Trump's tweets in a funny voice. (https://youtube.com/watch?v=XTEECbSPOKw)

I see, thanks.

I am not big fan of laughing at people with dementia like Trump or Biden though. We all might one day become senile and deserve some dignity despite everything.

Well that sets up some fucked incentives for illegal immigrants to skip bail. Not the judge's job to try to fix that though.

Although maybe the judge is aware that it's not her job, and chose to do it anyway as deliberate civil disobedience. If her goal was to get the issue into the public eye, she certainly succeeded. And as a judge, she's probably both more aware of the consequences of deliberately breaking the law here and also relatively well-positioned to deal with those consequences.

This means a pardon will be on the table as soon as it's an option. My complain is that the FBI and prosecutors have too much power overall whether it's sentence length or the scope of indictments, affecting both sides of the aisle, so this leads to more pardons and preemptive pardons. The abuse of pardons is really to lessen the the power of the judiciary. Compared to the rest of the developed world, the US hands out long sentences and indictments like candy, for all sort of things. The scary thing is how many files the FBI has on people who are never actually charged...it's immense.

Well, that certainly won't help in the broader judiciary-versus-executive political fight over deportation processes.

In the short span of time since I've heard this case, I've been trying to digest how exactly this fits in, and it's just so remarkably brazen that I can barely articulate it. I already thought that the more immigration-sympathetic judges played fast and loose with the rule of law, but it's on a completely different level to personally aid and abet the attempted escape of an illegal alien. When it's a legal proceeding with a decision I don't like, there's at least some pretense that we disagree about the law. This doesn't even have that fig leaf.

Suppose you're a judge, and you issue a warrant to arrest a murder suspect. Before the police can execute the warrant, he is detained by ICE and set for deportation. Would you consider this a satisfactory outcome?

State and Federal power are concurrent. No one gets to tell the other's LE what to do.

Would it be boneheaded to deport a murderer pre-trial? In most scenarios, yes. Almost every jurisdiction would detain the murderer ONE THEIR OWN DIME IN THEIR OWN FACILITIES, then when the murderer is finally released, they'd notify ICE.

But this is not even closely analogous. This illegal has a pending misdemeanor DV charge. The girlfriend is probably going to ask the prosecution to dismiss the charges soon enough (>50% of these end up this way). Even if she's committed they are in front of this hyper liberal judge who wouldn't imprison a "dreamer" or whatever this fellow is classified is in her mind if she knew ICE was anywhere near his trail. In other words, if ICE doesn't detain him, the most likely outcome is the case is dismissed and he waits out ICE for a while then goes about his illegal immigrant activities until he hits this, or another girlfriend again, repeat ad nauseam.

Whether I consider it satisfactory or not is hardly the point. There are many legal outcomes that I don't consider satisfactory, none of which I think I can remedy by electing to personally override the federal government's actions.

Maybe the judge thought that was better than ICE personally aiding and abetting the escape of a wife beater.

Given that he still has the option of turning himself in to ICE for that great "escape plan", this seems rather implausible.

Given how often domestic violence charges result in a metaphorical slap on the wrist, I don't think this really passes the sniff test. Theoretically, these charges could hit a little over two years imprisonment, but in practice the Milwaukee system gives 'nonviolent' domestic abusers (a category that looks to include these charges, because why would words mean things?) a median sentence of 50 days, and a third of those sentenced walk.

So I'm pretty skeptical at the first glance.

At a deeper level, I would be absolutely fascinated by a principle where state judges are allowed to determine what actions of federal law Act In The Interest Of Justice, but I think that's pretty settled.

The part you're forgetting is that doing the 50 days doesn't mean he gets to stay. It's not a choice between 50 days in jail or get deported, it's do the 50 days in jail and then get deported.

After the past head of Catholic Charities shoes him out the back door?

Again, doesn’t pass the sniff test.

EDIT: to be more clear: Dugan had the choice of maybe 50 days in jail, or getting deported, and took this action, which made either less likely. Literally while the victim was waiting in her court.

In this hypothetical are you a state or federal judge? Demanding the feds remand someone they've detained to state custody seems like something you at best could ask nicely for (see the precedent of Grant v. Lee on the subject). I would generally expect them to agree for major crimes absent other major political concerns. If federal (and assuming Article III), then no. If federal and Article II, then I think it's at least unclear which parts of the executive can order which others around.

I'm talking about state judges, because that's what's at issue here. And yep, ask nicely is what they do, by which I mean put in a formal request. And they generally agree for minor crimes as well as major ones, unless there's some compelling reason to get the guy out of the country ASAP. I remember a DUI case in Washington County, PA where the defense attorney was arguing for a dismissal since the guy was going to be deported and the case was moot. The fairly hardass judge wanted the attorney to request a release from ICE detention because he wanted to keep the guy from driving drunk and could require an interlock device and testing if the guy stayed here until the case was resolved. I don't know how the case ended, but I got the impression that the judge was convinced that they guy would end up killing someone in Mexico if he didn't dry out first.

The judge wanted the case off his call permanently. That is the most likely reason for this attitude.

*Edit

Here is how I imagine the thought process of a tougher on crime in my jurisdiction going:

  1. Damn it, another dumbass not coming to court.
  2. Oh counsel with another lame ass excuse is it? OOO WAIT a decent excuse this time. ICE CUSTODY! I havent had one for years!
  3. Crap. The state is right, this is actually the defendant's fault. I might have to issue a warrant.
  4. AHA! I can just order them to ask ICE to release him to me! Then I can be rid of this and go to my luncheon on time for once!
  5. Oh crap, no one actually has power over ICE to make that happen.
  6. Now I have to make the hard decision between issuing the warrant and risking he comes back and NOT issuing the warrant and he commits some crimes without a warrant issued! GAHHHH. I didn't become a judge to make choices, this is my paid retirement!

Whichever way it comes out, it's a point towards "Calvinball" in the "All this is the result of the right not understanding the orderly business of governing" vs "The business of governing is Calvinball."

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats