judging the judges

legal and ethical dimensions on accountability

in perhaps the least surprising outcome of the last several weeks, team “no one is above the law” seems to have revised their views on the dictum they so enjoyed deploying upon “the donald” in their endless lawfare of “orange man felon” for the most minor and (ahem) trumped up of inoffensive offenses now suddenly finds fault with each and every attempt to apply law to their own team. however egregious the breach, so long as it’s by one of “our” activist judges: all good homie, we got your back. they certainly seem to love and demand “due process” and equality before the law” when it suits, but reveal this to be a façade behind which to hide might makes right privilege and unaccountable power when such tactics round upon them.

we see it in judge after judge taking wild swings and actions in clear contravention of law and morality and the slavish, uncritical support they seem able to elicit. it really is “leftist 101.” they will never pick a good guy to champion. it’s always killers and thieves and crackheads, rapists and goons. this pattern is so clear that the memes basically write themselves.

and here we go again. again.

the refrain the donkey demagogues have been pre seeding for a year is “trump will be a dictator.” he will seize absolute power and wield it by fiat breaking the law, subverting democracy, and violating ethics and morality.

i want to really hit on that last one. “it’s the law” is a rotten synonym for “this is good or moral or right.” turning in runaway slaves was the law. helping them was a breach of it. obviously, this conflicted with morality and when such conflict occurs, it is indeed good and right to break the law. no law that violates morality is just and opposing it is not just permissible but laudable.

this seems to be the framework the left seeks to erect in defense of its manyfold and multifarious activism inc judges: they seek justice and ethics against a tide of bad law made and applied by bad people against the will and mores of the demos.

well lemme tell you: this ain’t that.

pull up a chair and let’s look:

meet tina smith, senator from blue bastion homeworld minnesota, land of tim walz and 10,000 lakes of liberal tears.

she is upset about what happened to judge hannah dugan, who seems like a straight from central casting made in karen factory number 147 character.

there really does seem to be some sort of pheno and archetype here…

covid masks on statues is a cry for help

the whole internet is awash in claim and counter claim.

so what really happened here? was she a fearless member of an underground railroad helping the oppressed in the most moral of fashions or was she, herself, a criminal, helping bad people to break just laws?

i do like a good set of primary source material, so let’s go to the actual criminal complaint flied against her. as far as i know, none of these facts are contested.

first some context: it’s quite common for law enforcement agencies to serve warrants on people who are in court. it’s an easy way to find them in a specific place at a specific time and, as they have passed through metal detectors, they are unarmed. this is seen as a safe and efficient manner in which to make arrests/serve warrants. this seems a sound idea to me and one that both serves efficacy and protects the officers and arrested alike.

so, eduardo flores-ruiz was found to be in court. he was answering violent domestic battery/abuse charges and had already been deported from the US once before (in 2013) and had snuck back in.

so, in typical mod-prog fashion, we have not picked an upstanding citizen to defend but rather exactly the sort of person you really are not looking to import.

biometrics proved he was at the courthouse and process was being followed to the letter. they brought a warrant and he’d have had his day in court over it.

so far, so lawful and also, so ethical. this is a seemingly violent person in the country illegally for the second time. they were even going to allow the hearing on the charges to take place before arresting him.

the FBI and ICE agents were waiting around the courtroom and in the hall. and that is where it starts to go off the rails.

first, we have a lawyer from the public defender’s office taking photos of the law enforcement team. (is this a disbarment offense? seems like it might be, though perhaps not as it was just “informational” and it’s not clear she played a role in actually seeking to aid in arrest evasion)

apparently someone announced “ICE is here” in the courtroom and then judge dugan left the courtroom to call the chief judge and then brought another judge with her to confront the officers in the hall.

they apparently missed some agents who were sitting apart and those agents remained in the hall.

judge dugan then left through a private door and the chief judge was reached by phone and confirmed that “hallways are a public area” and a warrant could be served and arrest made there.

meanwhile, her honor was heading back into the courtroom to sneak the defendant out through the jury room door in order to evade arrest.

there was nothing accidental, typical, or mistaken here. this was a direct, conscious choice made by an official of the court to smuggle a defendant accused of violent crimes out of the building in order to evade lawful arrest for returning illegally to the US a second time after having been previously deported.

she was not just aiding, she was emphatic and this was her idea and a huge surprise to to ruiz and his team. she conceived and executed this plan.

32. Another attorney (“Attorney C”), who was in Courtroom 615 on April 18, 2025, to

represent a client, also advised case agents that he observed Judge DUGAN forcefully direct two

individuals, a man and a woman, to leave through the jury door. Attorney C indicated that this was

done with a “stern” tone.

ruiz made it out of the courthouse and was then arrested after a foot chase.

so, legally, this looks to be about as open and shut as could be. judge dugan with absolute deliberation and malice aforethought, sought to assist a defendant in her court room in evading federal arrest by sneaking him and his attorneys out the back way from her court room, using private areas like the jury room to do so.

her actions were willful and performed in full knowledge of their legality and implications by a person highly informed on such matters.

there’s really zero wiggle room here.

she got, to use a legal term, “stone cold busted.”

the facts appear beyond question.

the only potential mitigating argument is one of morality, that she was nobly opposing unjust laws to assist a good person to evade bad things.

and i am just not seeing it.

he was in court to answer for striking his roommate over 30 times and choking him over a dispute about music and then hitting his roommate’s girlfriend as well when she sought to intervene. his roomie wound up in the hospital.

charming fellah.

this is not the “underground railroad.” he’s not being “returned to slavery” a state in which he was placed against his will and that deprived him of liberty or dignity. he’s being returned to mexico, the country of his birth in which he would be a free man. he’s being held to laws both moral and popular that those sneaking into america should be sent home.

the victims of this attack were present in court. they too were denied their justice, sacrificed to the political preferences of her honor hannah.

i’d love to see her make the case to their faces that she acted ethically and honorably.

(bet you a dollar she’d actually try it)

the further moral dimension is that these huge illegal populations in places like minnesota and wisconsin and many others are being used to sake the local census, garnering more electoral votes and more reps in the US house to say nothing of the local electoral effects. illegal residents being used to tilt and alter democratic representation is not “saving democracy” it’s subverting it and these cries by activist appointees and senators alike about “this is fascism” are pure projection and the age old practice of “accusing the other side of that which you are guilty.”

they know full well that if they lose this electoral slant, they’ll lose so much power that their machines will fail.

they constitute the very embodiment of the authoritarian impulse and unaccountable dictatorship they purport to oppose.

contrary to senator tina’s attestations, this is not about “didn’t like the judge” as though it was some sort of political putsch. this is straight up FAFO. you broke the law knowingly. there is no moral excuse. you just thought you were untouchable. and you got touched because your faction turns out not to be as powerful as you thought and the game and the public mood has changed.

“impunity for outlandish activism” is not longer a thing.

and that’s a good thing.

it’s not “fascism” it’s the road back from it.

there’s going to be a lot of nasty cleanup here. soros and the funhouse gang had a helluva value trade buying DA’s, AG’s, and judges. it was dirt cheap and the power of it is only now being dragged into the light.

the system has become desperately sick.

and this is how it starts to get better.

post publication addendum:

note the date here. this is not a new idea.

(thanks to tmitsss for finding this)