Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

More than 130 retired judges urge federal court to drop charges against Wisconsin judge Hannah Dugan ('judicial immunity')
See BS 'News' ^ | 5/30/25 | Kierra Frazier

Posted on 05/31/2025 5:08:27 AM PDT by Libloather

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-134 next last
To: Libloather

Snakes vowing not to eat each other.


41 posted on 05/31/2025 5:45:12 AM PDT by FlyingEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

There are over 30,000 judges in the US. This means only .004 or less than 1% of judges agree.


42 posted on 05/31/2025 5:47:20 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

Put this criminal in jail for as long as humanly possible.


43 posted on 05/31/2025 5:51:32 AM PDT by MrRelevant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Judicial immunity doesn’t apply here because it wasn’t an official act, which essentially is limited to actions you take on the bench, or the signing of opinions/orders.


44 posted on 05/31/2025 5:52:17 AM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

Good idea however:

(From Grok) Montana does not have a federal prison. The state has several state and local correctional facilities, such as the Montana State Prison in Deer Lodge and the Yellowstone County Detention Center, but no federal prison is located within Montana, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons and other available data. The closest federal facilities are in neighboring states, like Colorado or Idaho.


45 posted on 05/31/2025 5:54:34 AM PDT by BBB333 (The Power Of Trump Compels You!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Apparatchik

“By facilitating the escape of a wanted suspect, she was clearly acting in a private capacity, not an official one.”

She was not in a court room, there was no matter or controversy before this judge, there was no court reporter present.

This is in no way an official act that would fall under the auspices of judicial immunity.

Prosecute her fully and with vigor!


46 posted on 05/31/2025 5:55:38 AM PDT by Bshaw (A nefarious deceit is upon us all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

” her arrest undermines “centuries of precedent on judicial immunity.”
Her illegal behavior undermines the very laws she’s supposed to uphold.
Her arrogance, as a judge, put her exactly where she belongs.
Her radical beliefs exposed her as unfit to be a judge.


47 posted on 05/31/2025 5:56:56 AM PDT by Fireone (1.Avoid crowds 2.Head on a swivel 3.Be prepared to protect & defend those around you 4.Avoid crowds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

“centuries of precedent on judicial immunity.”

Nope. And when judges flout the law the penalties should be extreme.
Extremely extreme.


48 posted on 05/31/2025 5:56:58 AM PDT by bk1000 (Banned from Breitbart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Apparatchik

Good point. They’re saying release her even though she broke the law.


49 posted on 05/31/2025 5:57:58 AM PDT by nikos1121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

How about we let a jury decide this one? And when did helping an illegal alien escape capture (temporarily) become an official act?


50 posted on 05/31/2025 6:01:15 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (FBI out of Florida!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

To the re51 peoples now who opine in theier own behalf.
“There you go again” trying to rule from the bench.
Get over yourselves, if you need immunity it means that you did something wrong to start with!


51 posted on 05/31/2025 6:03:02 AM PDT by Recompennation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

unless & until some pensions are revoked, we’ll have this problem.


52 posted on 05/31/2025 6:04:06 AM PDT by abb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Active Fools are now Retire Old Fools


53 posted on 05/31/2025 6:12:28 AM PDT by butlerweave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

138 judges who also believe thy were above the law they held others to, thankfully they are retired.


54 posted on 05/31/2025 6:13:33 AM PDT by Mastador1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Pensions of the retired Democrat apparatchik judges should be closely examined in the presence of the examiner.


55 posted on 05/31/2025 6:14:32 AM PDT by bert ( (KE. NP. +12) Where is ZORRO when California so desperately needs him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

What percentage of the 130 were Democrat judges?


56 posted on 05/31/2025 6:16:40 AM PDT by alternatives?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Bring the federal judges out of retirement and impeach them. Would they have the same reaction if a conservative Minnesota judge had tried to sneak Derek Chauvin out the back door before his trial? (I know, a hypothetical question, since there are no conservative judges in Minneapolis)


57 posted on 05/31/2025 6:17:02 AM PDT by I-ambush (From the brightest star comes the blackest hole. You had so much to offer, why didya offer your sou?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BobL

What percentage of retired judges does that number represent?


58 posted on 05/31/2025 6:21:10 AM PDT by Racketeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

“No one is above the law”, so why should a judge be allowed to violate the law?


59 posted on 05/31/2025 6:21:15 AM PDT by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

The fact that judges, whom are supposed to understand that ‘justice is blind’, are actually arguing to be immune from the law is disgusting, and exposes judicial culture.

If a judge is clearly obstructing existing law, especially outside of the courtroom, they’re subject to the same law as the rest of us.

That they have the gall to even publicly declare this is more than troubling. They clearly believe that the black robe puts them in a position of power above all.


60 posted on 05/31/2025 6:21:42 AM PDT by fuzzylogic (welfare state = sharing of poor moral choices among everybody)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-134 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson