Judge indicted for allegedly sneaking immigrant out of courthouse to thwart ICE

Posted by  $  nickursis 7 months, 3 weeks ago to Government
28 comments | Share | Flag

YES!!!!! Thes liberal activist judges who think they can write heir own law are about to feel the PAIN that comes with their decisions. For way too long, these idiots have tried to ruin the country with their own agenda and screw the rest of us. I hope she gets 20 years. There are only 80,000 more sealed indictments. If you are a federal Judge who violated the law, I would be worried.
SOURCE URL: https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-indicted-for-allegedly-sneaking-immigrant-out-of-courthouse-to-thwart-ice-231646696.html


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  mminnick 7 months, 3 weeks ago
    Of he commits a crime the judge shold be charged as an accessory before the fact.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  25n56il4 7 months, 3 weeks ago
      While I agree this Judge deserves whatever comes her way, I must confess I've spent some time observing judicial behavior. Our District Judges run unopposed and begin to believe their 'greatness'. We shouldn't let this happen. One of our most important voting privileges is at risk!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  7 months, 3 weeks ago
        Which is one reason I am all for citizen judges, who can prove they can be impartial, and allow the lawyers to make the case for the trila, and the judge just uses the pertinent law, and any relevant material decide the case, as well as resolve any inconsistencies or issues (like "DNA evidence") and not be constrained by gagging rules and mountainous amounts of "precedence" that may not apply. Each case is unique and the primary task is justice and fairness to society and the individual.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  25n56il4 7 months, 2 weeks ago
          Oh, but you should see what a newly elected judge can do who has been a Prosecutor for 18 years. Can't get that out of her system. No one told her a judge is supposed to be impartial, not throw everyone in jail! That's how a Prosecutor keeps score.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  7 months, 2 weeks ago
            Have you got a name and location, that sounds like something to look at. It does illustrate the problem of impartiality, but also argues for citizen judges, which would avoid that type of thing.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 7 months, 2 weeks ago
    Me dino hopes such arrests becomes a big time trend. Like--about freakin' time already!
    Judges ain't some kinda above the law royalty.
    Seeing some sanctuary city mayors get busted would also be so very nice.
    Along with some city councils. Lock 'em all up!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 7 months, 2 weeks ago
      But juries are. A jury can disregard any law which it considers wrong, though the judge may threaten the jury about that. Jury nullification is not liked by judges but is one of the few methods that the citizens have to right some wrongs. The politicians certainly won't until much damage is done to some citizens.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  allosaur 7 months, 2 weeks ago
        There has already been some damage. Foremost in my memory is a lady named Kate who an illegal immigrant (already deported several times) shot and killed as she walked on a San Francisco pier with her dad.
        Last I heard the scumbag evaded a murder charge and walked. Could look it up but me dino is disgusted by such stories.
        Evidently, criminals for being wetbacks in the first place have more rights than law-abiding citizens in sanctuary cities.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by lrshultis 7 months, 2 weeks ago
          You miss the point. Juries are the last defense against bad law. Were your examples of juries that believed that the immigration laws are wrong? Did any of your examples have some kind of not guilty verdict?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  allosaur 7 months, 2 weeks ago
            Okay, I had to backtrack a little. Recently had cataract surgery and I can';t read the screen so well.
            It appears that the premise of whatever you're trying to tell me is that Juries Are Above The Law.
            Please expand in simple terms please. You may even be condescening if you like. I can take it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by lrshultis 7 months, 2 weeks ago
              Juries are not above the law and must be formed and served on but since they are to be secret in how they determine guilt or innocence, they can ignore the law, even if required to do so, if they wish to do so. The court has no recourse to change the verdict or even require the jury to state their reasons as to how they voted. Unless the verdict is extremely irrational or new evidence should appear, then in which case a new jury would have to be formed if necessary. That happens from time to time because a law is so irrational or just plain dumb that they will in private deliberation ignore it.
              If I recall right, back in the 1970s, one of the states gave a statement to juries that the jury is more powerful than the government and that they were the last defense legally against the government. After the jury system a government out of control can only be stopped the rebellion.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by lrshultis 7 months, 2 weeks ago
                I am starting to get cataracts. Hope I don't have to get surgery. How long does it take to heal after the surgery?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  allosaur 7 months, 2 weeks ago
                  About 10 days for each eye and that involves taking prescribed eye drops before and after.
                  I've had a pricey (Medicare won't pay for it) artificial lens inserted in place to the removed cataract for my left eye. That eye can now see perfectly for a long distance but needs reading glasses that my right eye doesn't need yet its seeing is still rendered cloudy by a cataract. .
                  My right eye will have its cataract removed and a lens inserted May 7.
                  The left lens for my glasses is removed but my right lens is a graduated bifocal.
                  So I'll be buying reading glasses shortly before my second operation.
                  Seeing stuff up close is a little messed up for now.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by lrshultis 7 months, 2 weeks ago
                    Any idea why Medicare was set up to not cover three things which are important to seniors: eyesight, hearing, and teeth while covers many less important things?
                    I tried to opt out back in the 1970's but was threaten with prison, so paid up. It was very helpful when I had a heart attack but I do not like the yearly wellness exam which just wastes money. The doctor always adds a physical to it which doubles the cost to Medicare.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  allosaur 7 months, 2 weeks ago
                      Medicare would have paid for the cataract surgery if only the cataracts were removed. That meant I would continue to wear my glasses. At 72 now, I'd like to live out what time I have left without worrying with glasses. Just shades and cheap glasses to read will be okay.
                      I could not afford it living retired on a state employee pension and SS, but when my father died my 4 brothers and I inherited, well, none of us are millionaires but I almost immediately bought a CD so I could hear Cindi Lauper sing "Money Changes Everything" several times in my car.
                      The onely car I bought so far was one year used for my son.
                      I also boiught four guns for myself and for my son an AR15.
                      I've slowed down such on spending because I want my son to inheirt everything I have. He is disabled.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo