When did “Minnesota Nice” mutate into “Minnesota Stupid”?
Following the charging of a Wisconsin judge who pretty clearly obstructed justice and used her position to prevent an illegal immigrant and criminal from being arrested, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D. Minn), as you can see above, tweeted, “This is not normal. The Administration’s arrest of a sitting judge in Wisconsin is a drastic move that threatens the rule of law. While we don’t have all the details, this is a grave step and undermines our system of checks and balances.”
Remind me to shake that in front of the faces of my various friends and relatives who supported this shallow, foolish woman when she was running for President in 2020. Her tweet is one more smoking gun proving that Democratic officials will find excuses to accuse President Trump of threatening the “rule of law” and “separation of powers” and creating a “constitutional crisis” regardless of what he and his administration does.
Hilariously, Klobuchar admits that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about —“we don’t have all the details”—but in fact the details already made it as clear as Saran-wrap that Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan deliberately set out to interfere with the lawful arrest of an illegal immigrant. Dugan’s bizarre conduct revived memories of another lawless judge with a soft spot for illegals, Massachusetts District Court Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph, who was indicted in federal court in Boston on obstruction of justice charges for preventing an U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer from taking custody of an alien defendant. She delayed ICE while her staff secretly let the illegal escape out the courthouse back door in the Spring of 2018, before Trump Derangement had reached pandemic levels.
The details on Dugan’s effort to thwart law enforcement are worse, as this thread by Prof. Margot Cleveland amply demonstrates. Also hilariously, Democrats are condemning what sure looks like a legitimate criminal charge against a Democratic judge as politically motivated after they spent 2024 applauding lame, contrived and blazingly political prosecutions of Donald Trump while they intoned, “Nobody is above the law.”
Minnesota’s other addled female U.S. Senator, Tina Smith, also felt it necessary to make her state look ridiculous over the judge’s crime, saying of Dugan’s arrest, “If [FBI Director] Kash Patel and Donald Trump don’t like a judge, they think they can arrest them. This is stunning — we must stand up to this blatant power grab. Republicans: How is this not a red line for you?”
What? Who does like judges who protect criminals and law-breakers? By what logic is holding a judge accountable for defying law enforcement a “power grab” and a “red line”? This shouldn’t be a partisan issue, but I wish I had the time and energy to track how many Axis news sources and progressive pundits have the integrity to slam Klobuchar and Smith for their hypocrisy.
Do let me, know, dear readers, if you see any examples of consistent standards out there in the Axis.
Ethics Alarms 
“Do let me, know, dear readers, if you see any examples of consistent standards out there in the Axis.”
Consistent DOUBLE STANDARDS.
Reporting from GROUND ZERO in the 77 Square Miles Surrounded By A Sea Of Reality and Lefty, not to put too fine a point to it, is $#!tting themselves sideways.
It’s almost too much to take.
Almost……
PWS
“Nobody is above the law” … except Democrats.
Jack wrote:
Her tweet is one more smoking gun proving that Democratic officials will find excuses to accuse President Trump of threatening the “rule of law” and “separation of powers” and creating a “constitutional crisis” regardless of what he and his administration does.
The reality of all this is that the Democrats have coalesced (if that word rationally applies to the slipshod mess that is the current Democratic Party) around the idea that everything the Trump administration does is authoritarian, “norm breaking,” and outrageous. It really doesn’t matter what the facts are, they know what works for them is creating a media narrative and constantly backing it up with fact-free tweets, outright, shameless hypocrisy, and unapologetic virtue-signalling.
That’s why you see them doubling down on 20% issues like trying to free an MS-13 illegal alien to return to Maryland (even though they are well aware that he cannot legally be admitted into the United States), attacking women through “trans rights,” and engaging every left-wing judge in America to throw sticks in the way of Trump’s agenda.
Regarding that last point, one Xwitter commented with incredible perceptiveness:
@upstatefederlst
It cannot be true that policy may only be enacted in the United States via unanimous consent of every single federal judge in the country.
So it would seem.
This is all true to the Democrats’ latest plan. If you are looking for consistency, fairness, and attention to the rule of law, you might want to look elsewhere. Usually, one has to go to a trailer park in deepest, darkest Appalachia to find the kind of casual ignorance the narrative-driven Democrats have decided to proudly embrace.
The system of checks and balances assumes that the three branches of government are coequal; and thereby contradicts the doctrine of judicial supremacy.
Judges actually breaking the law is on the criminal side of lawlessness of the judiciary; judges issuing activist injunctions and TRO’s to stall the agenda of a duly elected President should be treated at lawlessness to, but with a different remedy; the Trump administration should simply ignore these injunctions and TROs.
The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, dictates that federal law, including the Constitution itself, are the supreme law of the land. This means that in situations where federal and state laws conflict, federal law takes precedence. State judges are bound to uphold federal laws and treaties, such as immigration law. State and local government are violating the Supremacy Clause by being a sanctuary state or city.
So Klobuchar should know that ICE is executing on the law, while it are the activist judges and sanctuary states and city who act like they are above the law.
Van Hollin stated this is what fascism looks like.
It is…when judges undermine the rule of law for political expediency. That’s what “Judgment at Nuremberg” is about….
I am sure you know that my illustrious Senator from Maryland was referring to Trump’s DOJ.
I thought it was the German judges on trial for actually following the Nazi laws which we claimed (rightly) were unjust. This judge is saying that our immigration laws were unjust and did not need to be followed.
The issue is the same however. The judges tried at Nuremberg were violating legal principles to support an unethical regime and unethical policies embodied in laws that were illegal under traditional German law as well as acknowledged human rights tenets.
ok. I see where you are coming from