I took it from the PDF someone linked on the thread; that portion was in transcript format (that is that portion wasn’t in any [court] order).
I don’t know a lot of legalese (haven’t been trained), but some of the stuff I’ve read (like the Indiana supreme court’s “the state no longer recognizes the [legal] right to use lethal force to resist illegal [police] entry” decision**) I can’t rule it out.
** This decision flies in the face of 4th Amendment decisions by the USSC; the Indiana Constitution has a word-for-word copy of the 4th... therefore the state’s supreme court must either a) be asserting that the USSC’s decisions do not bind them, or that b) it is a state matter, and they have the ability to alter the state’s constitution.
Those posting this are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Probably. They provide no background, so it’s really hard to tell what is at issue.
The disturbing parts of the transcript are exactly that. Part of what the judge said during discussion in court. They are not part of any ruling and have zero force in law.
Much of what he said, however, is exactly right. The full force of the government does indeed stand behind a federal judge’s ruling. If resisted, that means up to and including military force. As it should.
Which is not to say the ruling in question is correct, as with no background that’s impossible to tell.
That said, the judge really needs to tone down his hyperbole a bit. There is no death penalty for contempt of court, though the judge can lock you up essentially indefinitely.