434
Judge arrested by Trump administration fights back with Trump’s own immunity case
(www.thedailybeast.com)
Does she have a legal defense fund?
this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
434 points (99.5% liked)
politics
23557 readers
3197 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
She's a judge, I'm sure she can afford it (or knows people who will do it, or could probably just do it herself if needed)
On one hand, turnabout is always a good time. Maybe it'll clue some folks in to how bullshit that decision was, from the start.
On the other hand, lol, no it fucking won't. They'll just make up some other new bullshit reason that "no, that doesn't actually apply, in this one specific case, where the person we want to prosecute doesn't agree with us".
So if the agent's actions were illegal then her actions were legal.
The problem with the prosecution is there is no law being broken. If the person had been in ice custody it would be one thing but as a free person there for something unrelated and not delivered by ice the judge is completely free to allow access to the private area of the court that the judge has authority over.
Shit yea, they apply immunity for official acts all the way down to the level of street cops who get away with crimes against the public, so why shouldn't it apply to that judge
I hope it works, but I wouldn't count on it. Hypocrisy has become a valued skill rather than a character flaw in this administration.
Can't wait for SCOTUS to rule that the immunity ruling somehow applies only to Trump.
I was under the impression that that was really the case and didn't apply to anyone else in government.
I have to read the full text again, and IANAL, but the ruling was former presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts particularly by their core constitutional powers. It did not rule on unofficial acts.
To me, that means every official act can be weighed against it being in his authority to actually do those things. If he doesn't have that constitutional power, then he doesn't get official act immunity.
What the judge did is power granted to the judicial branch by the constitution. That, again to me, says that there is an immunity clause.
But that all is based on the premise that law matters, and it doesn't given that we've already abandoned due process.
I'm fully banking on it. They'll argue the office of the president is "special" and not beholden to the same rules and regulations that are supposed to bind public servants. And the SC will grant them that.
I'd almost love it if that ruling screwed over polices qualified immunity for their "official acts."
Then they will be opening themselves for future prosecution for their acts. I could see them (majority) siding with her just to protect their asses.
As a judge she knew the difference between due process and extrajudicial kidnapping for trafficking to a foreign concentration camp. She was standing up for the rule of law, and the fascists in charge are determined to punish her for it.
Have to make an example of her to quash further dissent.
I'll show you the line that was crossed.
The Rule of Law is supposed to lift law above politics. The idea is that the law should stand above every powerful person and agency in the land.
Rule by law, in contrast, connotes the instrumental use of law as a tool of political power. It means that the state uses law to control its citizens but tries never to allow law to be used to control the state.
Rule of Law: law is above politics.
YOU ARE HERE
Rule by Law: control the individual.
Right there!
Let me show you the predicate that failed.
Rule by law, in contrast, connotes the instrumental use of law as a tool of political power. It means that the state uses law to control its citizens but tries never to allow law to be used to control the state.
As a completely unfounded opinion on the role of ethics, this blatantly beggars the question.
Why is the ground so slippery lately?
All the bootlicking
And winning.
And the e coli all over everything.