Judge Dugan's move to dismiss is a desperate tactic, but it may succeed.
A day after a grand jury indicted Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan and her attorney are asking that her federal charges be dismissed, arguing the charges are unconstitutional, citing her judicial immunity and the Tenth Amendment....
OK, so what does the 10th actually say?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
So Insurrectionist Hannah claims that her courtroom activity is protected by the 10th so she is immune from Federal prosecution for whatever she does in there.
Or maybe not "whatever she does," but just things she does to further her goals of criminal illegal entry and residence in the US.
Sure. That will sit real well with Normies, ya'know.
Could she pull this off?
Yup.
The judge hearing the case (and deciding on her motion to dismiss) is Lynn Adelman, the prototypical Far-Left-Extreeeeeme Fed judge. He was Far-Left-Extreeeeeeme before the term was invented, and if this inane motion is granted, we have Tommy Thompson to thank.
Think about that......
Things that make you go ...hummmmmm.
ReplyDeleteIf no one is above the law (assuming one = human being, aka a person) AND Judge Dugan is above the law, then Judge Dugan is not human.
If the Hannah Dugan entity otherwise behaves like a human, AND she is constructed of inorganic materials, like silicon and various metals, then the Hannah Dugan is probably a machine, like a robot, perhaps with some level of programmed artificial intelligence.
If the Hannah Dugan apparition is constructed of organic materials, then the Hannah Dugan is probably a demon.
Personally, I don't detect any evidence of artificial intelligence.
I suppose there's an argument somewhere that she acted outside the scope of her judicial duties.
ReplyDeleteThe 10th Amendment has been treated as a dead letter by the government, especially the Federal judiciary, for so long it would be astonishing to see it successfully (if cynically) employed. If it established a useful precedent for courts taking the 10th seriously again, that would be a genuine silver lining.
ReplyDelete