GREGG JARRETT: Rogue, leftist judges caused by an obsession with feelings, not facts
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor once observed, "We apply law to facts. We don't apply feelings to facts."
Judges in America should heed Sotomayor's wise counsel. That some do not gives rise to a form of tyranny from the bench where judges hold the law in contempt in favor of their "feelings." By doing so, they are breaching the public's trust. It is a perilous choice.
Recently, two state court jurists allowed their "feelings" to overrule their better judgment. By anointing themselves sanctuary judges and actively shielding illegal migrants, they have placed themselves in legal jeopardy as accessories.
Their subsequent arrests tend to prove Sotomayor's point.
In Wisconsin, Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested for allegedly aiding and abetting an illegal alien's escape from her courtroom as federal agents arrived to take him into custody on an administrative deportation warrant. The criminal complaint and supporting affidavit state that a "visibly angry" Dugan said, "wait, come with me" and then escorted the defendant from her court to a non-public back door to evade his arrest.
Once outside, the defendant, who was also facing domestic abuse charges in Dugan's courtroom, "sprinted down the street." A foot chase ensued, putting citizens and law enforcement at risk of harm. He was apprehended without injury. Days later, Dugan was arrested on the courthouse grounds and charged with federal obstruction and concealment (18 USC 1505 and 1071). A conviction carries a maximum sentence of six years behind bars.
In a separate case, New Mexico Judge Jose Luis Cano and his wife were arrested after authorities determined that they knowingly harbored at their home an illegal migrant with suspected ties to the notorious Tren de Aragua transnational criminal gang, which is a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. Cano and his family allegedly gave the man access to guns with a suppressor. He was taken into custody.
Meanwhile, Cano resigned his office while the state supreme court permanently banned him from ever serving on the bench. But that was the least of his worries. The criminal complaint states that Cano confessed to destroying incriminating evidence. He is charged with federal evidence tampering, and his wife is facing a conspiracy offense (18 USC 1519 and 371). If convicted, the maximum sentence is 20 years in prison.
Right on cue, a slew of Democrats voiced their predictable outrage and condemnation by suggesting that judges are above and beyond the law — liberal judges, that is. Minnesota's two leftist U.S. senators both howled in unison that the arrests were a Trump-inspired vendetta that demolishes the rule of law. How exactly, they didn't say.
In truth, the charges against Dugan and Cano constitute a responsible effort by federal authorities to uphold the rule of law irrespective of status. Of course, they are presumed innocent and will get their day in court to contest the charges. But judges hold no special immunity. Those who believe otherwise delude themselves into thinking that their lofty positions somehow absolve or insulate them. That is a mistaken belief, teased by hope out of arrogance.
Like everyone else, judges must conform their own conduct to the requirements of the law that they are sworn to uphold. When they do not, they can and should be prosecuted. It is not unprecedented.
In a strikingly similar case seven years ago, Massachusetts Judge Shelly Joseph was indicted by federal prosecutors for helping an illegal migrant sneak out of her courthouse to avoid arrest and deportation. Joseph later struck a deal with a Biden-installed prosecutor to drop all charges in exchange for judicial disciplinary proceedings.
It is not just politicians on the progressive left who are incensed over the recent judicial arrests, regardless of the facts and evidence. At least one other Wisconsin judge has vaulted into the fray as a self-appointed face of resistance.
Fellow Wisconsin Judge Monica Isham decided to deploy her own personal and professional protest over Dugan's arrest by announcing that she would refuse to do her job. She informed other jurists in the state that she would undertake a boycott by closing down her courtroom in the absence of further "guidance" and "support."
She wrote in an email, "I have no intention of allowing anyone to be taken out of my courtroom by ICE and sent to a concentration camp…"
Overlooking the incendiary and absurd use of the term "concentration camp," Isham fails to realize that there is nothing illegal about law enforcement officers making arrests inside courthouses. It happens all the time. Yet, she apparently feels "triggered" by recent events and bemoans that "I no longer feel [emphasis added] protected or respected as a judge."
Minnesota's two leftist U.S. senators both howled in unison that the arrests were a Trump-inspired vendetta that demolishes the rule of law. How exactly, they didn't say.
There's that pesky word "feel" again, as if a judge's tender feelings have anything whatsoever to do with fidelity to the law. I would suggest that Isham consult with Justice Sotomayor for the very guidance she demands.
"Sanctuary jurisdictions that shield criminal aliens endanger American communities," said Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. "This Justice Department will not stand by as local officials put politics over public safety," he added.
Blanche made those suitable remarks as federal prosecutors brought the charges against Judges Dugan and Cano. It was same argument — and warning — issued long ago by one of our most prominent and progressive Supreme Court Justices, Louis Brandeis:
"Our government … teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
If, by their own behavior, judges feel free to disregard the law or violate it with impunity, chaos ensues. Where law ends tyranny begins, noted John Locke.
That is precisely what is happening. Lawless sanctuary policies inevitably embolden judges to abandon their legal duties and join the liberal cause. Often, they cite local ordinances or state statutes protecting illegal migrants in order to justify their sanctuary status. Conveniently, they ignore the established principle that federal law takes precedent under Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
Decades ago, Congress passed a law to combat those who aid and abet illegal immigration. Lawmakers made it a crime — punishable by up to five years in prison — to "conceal, harbor, or shield from detection" any person in the U.S. illegally (8 USC 1324). It is also a conspiracy felony to "interrupt, hinder, or impede" federal officers in the discharge of their duties (8 USC 372). Obstruction and concealment are additional crimes, as noted above.
The illegal Immigration Reform Act of 1996 requires states and municipalities to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration requests (8 USC 1373). That same law empowers a president to withhold federal financial support from cities and states that thwart the law by ignoring detainer requests. This includes the failure to honor outstanding deportation orders.
She wrote in an email, "I have no intention of allowing anyone to be taken out of my courtroom by ICE and sent to a concentration camp…"
Democrats spent the last four years insisting that "no one is above the law." None were outraged over the indictments and arrest of then-former President Donald Trump. Indeed, they cheered his prosecution.
Yet, they are now apoplectic over the charges brought against two jurists who stand accused of defying the law. Apparently, presidents are not above the law, but judges are.
The rank hypocrisy is self-evident. Democrats selectively apply their "feelings" to facts instead of the law to facts.
Where is Justice Sotomayor when you need her?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
12 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Netherlands Defence Minister: NATO-wide 5% defence spend would be "historic"
Ruben Brekelmans, Netherlands Minister of Defence said they and their European partners support President Donald Trump's calls to encourage Iran to the negotiation table in order to "come to a sustainable solution". Speaking about the upcoming NATO meeting, he told Bloomberg's Oliver Crook "if we agree to 5% spending on core defence and defence-related matters, that would be a historic step" and said it would be of particular significance "if 32 allies in unity agree on this". (Source: Bloomberg)
Fox News
14 minutes ago
- Fox News
Ted Cruz: Biden's foreign policy 'accelerated' Iran's nuclear program
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Trump to huddle with top brass after hammering Iran's nuclear sites
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
Leavitt: ‘High degree of confidence' strikes hit Iran's stored enriched uranium
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday the Trump administration has a 'high degree of confidence' that its strikes against Iran hit locations where enriched uranium was being stored amid questions about whether officials in Tehran had relocated the nation's stockpile. 'We are confident, yes, that Iran's nuclear sites were completely and totally obliterated, as the president said in his address to the nation on Saturday night,' Leavitt said on ABC. 'And we have a high degree of confidence that where those strikes took place is where Iran's enriched uranium was stored,' she added. 'The president wouldn't have launched the strikes if we weren't confident in that. So this operation was a resounding success.' The U.S. on Saturday struck three Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. President Trump described them in an address to the nation as 'completely and totally obliterated,' something he reiterated in a social media post late Sunday. But experts have acknowledged it would take time to determine the extent of the damage from U.S. strikes, and some reports raising the possibility that Iran moved some of its enriched uranium away from those sites ahead of the attack. 'Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction,' Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said Sunday. The New York Times reported that there was evidence Iran had moved equipment and uranium from the Fordow site in recent days, citing two Israeli officials. The Times also cited text messages from the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency indicating Iran had moved its uranium stockpile. Trump administration officials have maintained that the purpose of the strikes was to decimate Iran's nuclear program and severely curtail Tehran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon. 'We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program,' Vice President Vance said Sunday on NBC News's 'Meet the Press.'
