Comments on: The imperial judiciary strikes again

By: Chases Eagles

Chases Eagles — Wed, 09 Jul 2025 16:58:58 +0000

Dugan was not acting in her official capacity so no immunity. Acting in her official capacity would have entailed some type of judicial order.

By: huxley

huxley — Wed, 09 Jul 2025 15:16:03 +0000

Re: More imperial judiciary
__________________________

Judge Hannah Dugan, 65, was arrested in April and charged in a two-count federal indictment alleging that she knowingly concealed a person sought for arrest by immigration authorities and for obstruction of official Department of Homeland Security removal proceedings.

Lawyers for Dugan, in part citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in President Donald Trump’s immunity case, have argued she has judicial immunity for official acts and that her prosecution is unconstitutional.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/recommendation-magistrate-judge-case-milwaukee-judge-hannah-dugan/story?id=123556668
__________________________

What can’t a judge do?

By: Martin

Martin — Wed, 09 Jul 2025 13:17:23 +0000

One difference I heard was that this ruling only involves the people party to the case. Planned Parenthood vs any other abortion provider whereas the nationwide injunctions said the EO or law could not be enforced against anyone anywhere.

By: Deprastic

Deprastic — Wed, 09 Jul 2025 12:02:07 +0000

If you went to Harvard, you can do whatever you want, get fully supported by the “good” people, and get away with it. It’s that simple.

By: Marlene

Marlene — Wed, 09 Jul 2025 05:44:23 +0000

Yes, impeachment seems impossible in these times.
If we succeed in keeping the House & Senate in 2026, judicial reform could be a great agenda bullet.
Long overdue, IMO.
Why wait until 2028?
I’d like to see a system put in place where federal judges get penalized for each failed ruling (ie, an overturned ruling), and lose their job after some number.
I know that comes with problems, but … just a seed idea, to start.*
What we have now is a particularly nasty “loophole” allowing political hijacking by domestic enemies.
The loophole being: life appointments with effectively no ongoing proof of merit required.
..
* I realize this wouldn’t stop their knee-jerk TRO’s, though.
Needs work.

By: HC68

HC68 — Wed, 09 Jul 2025 03:36:22 +0000

VWhen a law is crafted and passes its votes by both Congressional bodies, and is then signed into law by the POTUS, how is a district judge empowered to stop its implementation? And worse, without showing cause? There has to be more to this story.

If not, then there has to be a system of penalties put into place that has the teeth to strip a judge of their position on the basis of outrageous conduct, abuse of authority, misuse of power; or as someone else mentioned, an automatic appellate review halting the injunction before being accepted as valid.

— Aggie

There is. It’s called impeachment, and it’s very hard.

In practical terms, the real limit on the powers of the three branches is what the other two branches will permit them to do, with public tolerance as the backstop in two levels: 1. elections and 2. the threat of violence, if all else fails.

The Presidency, Congress, and the Judiciary have pulled back and forth against each other, gaining and losing powers as they do, since the country was founded.

By: Jeff Cox

Jeff Cox — Wed, 09 Jul 2025 01:44:21 +0000

A temporary restraining order is merely to freeze the status quo until a hearing on the merits can be held to which the party subject to the TRO (often issued ex parte) has notice and in which that party has an opportunity to be heard. Under both federal and state rules of civil procedure, it dissolves automatically after a set period of time, usually 10 or 14 days. A TRO is nothing unusual. A preliminary injunction is a much bigger problem because that comes after such a hearing in which a likelihood to win on the merits has been shown. But that has not been issued here. Yet. A TRO is fairly common and not difficult to get and was fully expected in this case, so just relax. This is not a catastrophe or a judge overreaching.

By: John Guilfoyle

John Guilfoyle — Wed, 09 Jul 2025 01:01:50 +0000

Ackler makes the point…leftist activist judges are not afraid of being overturned because there is no consequential impact on them. “SCOTUS overruled me? Ho Hum. Let’s try this instead next time.”

Judicial reform should include some form of consequence for this sort of Constitutional malfeasance.

By: Barry Meislin

Barry Meislin — Tue, 08 Jul 2025 22:59:41 +0000

I believe the answer to this one (Jake) is—simply—“Massachusetts”.…

(BTW, what on earth is “complexifies” doing in the WSJ???)

By: neo

neo — Tue, 08 Jul 2025 22:28:47 +0000

Watt:

My point was not whether a TRO would be better or worse than an injunction; it was whether or not the recent SCOTUS decision, which I recall as being about an injunction, would be controlling. Also, if I’m not mistaken, in the original injunction in the case SCOTUS later ruled on, the government was given no time to present its case.