unicorn

No, the issue of whether or not the judge had the legal authority to ignore the warrant is irrelevant (and may take years to litigate). Whether she legally could or not ignore the warrant isn't the pertinent issue here, nor is it the issue either one of us is qualified to argue. Only a fanatic true believer, however, would argue that she should have ignored the warrant, and misdirected law enforcement authorities.

I wish I were boring. Whose mind I'd like to bore, I'll leave to your imagination. 😄

Walking my dog this afternoon, I thought of you, and the Gilbert & Sullivan tune came to my mind, which has the verse "I always voted at my party's call, and I never thought of thinking for myself at all...". As you said, neither of us is a lawyer, so neither of us can speak with authority as to whether or not the judge was within her rights to ignore the warrant. Another judge will decide that. What I think few would question, however, are: (1) whether the batterer had his due process prior to his deportation order, (2) whether or not this particular man is being deported legally, or (3) whether or not deporting him is a good idea. In other words, whether or not it was within her rights to ignore the warrant, only a fanatic would say it was the proper thing to do. She certainly had the option to avoid her (misguided and ineffectual) attempts to misdirect the FBI agents. Once again, you're factually incorrect when you stated that I had a "pre-determined conclusion" that the judge was in the wrong. When I first heard about the judge getting arrested, I literally gasped in outrage. Only after I looked into the full facts of this situation did I change my mind. Unlike yourself, I'm able to change my opinion upon learning new facts. I can predict your opinion as easily as I can predict a knee jerk.

That's your problem, when it comes down to it. You cling to the party line (or what you think is the party line), then adjust your "logic" to support your pre-determined conclusion. Do I vote Democrat as often as you do? It's probably pretty close--every few years, I will find a Republican running for a more minor office who I feel is the better candidate, but do vote for the Democrat over 95% of the time. Being a true believer, rather than a rational fact analyzer, can lead a person down the wrong path. If you haven't, you might want to read the old classic The True Believer by the late Eric Hoffer. I read it when I was in high school. That being said, I doubt many Democrats are fans of the wife batterer.

Even if it were the case that polls determine right from wrong (which they don't), your statements are misleading, as I very much hope you know. The polls are about Trump's general behavior towards deportation, which any reasonable person would agree are outrageous. There are no polls (as far as I'm aware) regarding this particular person. This person HAS had his day in the immigration court, and HAS had due process there. He has an active deportation order. As you also know, I was not defending Trump's usual behavior in the immigration sphere. Even the Thomalitos of the SCOTUS agree that snatching legal permanent residents from the streets and sending them to El Salvador without due process is super-illegal. However, in this case the defendant did have due process (over a decade ago, when Obama was POTUS), and he clearly represents a danger to society. You're confounding two completely separate issues (as I hope you know, unless there's seriously something wrong).

Well, maybe if he were arrested for something minor such as petty theft or reckless driving, but do you really feel that he deserves mercy after beating two people so badly they needed hospitalization? For the most part, I disagree with almost everything the Trump administration does. However, it's sentiments such as these which I think incensed the public enough to elect the orange buffoon--obviously with tragic consequences for not just the US, but probably the entire planet.

Maybe he'd be a better Defense Secretary than the current one! 😄 At least he isn't continuously drunk!

At first, when I heard the FBI arrested a judge for helping an illegal alien, I thought "...Another one of those Trump administration over-reaches...". Then, when I looked more into it, I felt a lot less sympathy for her. It's not the fact that he was still in the country well after a decade of being ordered to leave. Rather, it was the combination with his other, violent crimes, including battery and domestic abuse, which made me lose sympathy. https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-hannah-dugan-arrested-fbi-allegedly-helping-undocumented/story?id=121161497 ..."Just now, the FBI arrested Judge Hannah Dugan out of Milwaukee, Wisconsin on charges of obstruction — after evidence of Judge Dugan obstructing an immigration arrest operation last week," Patel said in the new post. "We believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse, Eduardo Flores Ruiz, allowing the subject — an illegal alien — to evade arrest." ... Federal prosecutors allege Flores-Ruiz illegally entered the U.S. from Mexico and was issued an Expedited Removal order in January 2013, according to a criminal complaint. Bondi alleged that Flores-Ruiz beat his roommate and a woman so badly that they needed to be hospitalized and that he continued to be belligerent in the hospital before his arrest. According to the complaint, Dugan allegedly sought to help Flores-Ruiz evade arrest by federal officers from an ICE task force... "The courtroom deputy then saw Judge DUGAN get up and heard Judge DUGAN say something like 'Wait, come with me,'" the complaint states. "Despite having been advised of the administrative warrant for the arrest of Flores-Ruiz, Judge DUGAN then escorted Flores-Ruiz and his counsel out of the courtroom through the 'jury door,' which leads to a nonpublic area of the courthouse."...After he was encountered by FBI and DEA agents outside the building, Flores-Ruiz "turned around and sprinted down the street" before he was ultimately apprehended, according to the complaint... It would be one thing if his only crime were being in the country illegally. But the violent crimes add another, more significant layer, at least as far as I'm concerned. Judges shouldn't consider themselves immune from consequences if they break the law.

Any bets as to whether or not Trump will pardon Santos? We live in an era in which sociopaths are celebrated... 🙄

Earlier today my husband and I watched the new blockbuster Sinners today, and he remarked that the movie plot was essentially the same as the drag queen version we'd seen just over a year earlier, Slay. The main difference was that the major theme behind this year's movie was racism, and last year's movie's was homophobia. I enjoyed both movies. Today's actually had better eye candy in Michael B. Jordan and Jack O'Connell. However, no denying that Slay had a more original plot. I don't know whether they'd have a case for copyright violations, but it certainly did seem like a stolen plot. Have any of you also watched both movies? Did you feel similarly? Michael B. Jordan: Jack O'Connell:

I recently heard in the news that a judge in Chicago was sentencing a mass murderer to seven consecutive life sentences. I'm happy that this murder will never see the light of day (he pleaded guilty), but I don't understand the logic of sentencing someone to seven consecutive life sentences. I've only heard of one, probably apocryphal, story of someone coming back to life after death. Only cats, as far as I know, are reputed to have 9 lives. Maybe we have someone more knowledgeable in legal matters who can explain this type of sentence... https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/highland-park-shooter-to-serve-7-consecutive-life-sentences/3730113/ "A judge handed seven consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole to the gunman who pleaded guilty to a mass...".

I read an article recently that Pete Davidson is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to get his tattoos removed. I was struck by the reason he gave for getting them in the first place: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pete-davidson-tattoo-removal-price_n_680a42d0e4b0ca3d07709f30 “I used to be a drug addict and I was a sad person, and I felt ugly and that I needed to be covered up,” he told Variety. “So I’m just removing them and starting fresh, because that’s what I think works best for me and for my brain.” I've also noticed that most trans men also seem to get a lot of tattoos. I wonder how common it is for people to turn to tattoos as a response to sadness and/or body dysmorphia. Maybe it's more common among those who get lots of tattoos?

My husband saw this bag at a gift shop and said "Yeah, those death cap mushrooms will age you really quickly!"

I'm not sure if I understand what you're asking, but I was truly flabbergasted to learn that members could vote in categories in which they hadn't seen all of the nominees' films. That seems like a fairly basic requirement. Apparently BAFTA has always had the requirement for voters to have viewed all nominees' films, which makes obvious sense. I personally felt shocked.

According to Variety magazine, "In a major shift for Oscar voting protocol, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has announced that members will now be required to confirm they’ve watched all nominated films in a category before being allowed to vote in that race." WTF? Does that mean that up until now, members could vote in categories where they hadn't even watched all of the films being nominated? Doesn't that make the whole process a farce? Well, I guess the process will have some integrity moving forward... 🙄 https://variety.com/2025/film/awards/oscars-2026-key-dates-casting-rules-ai-1236374012/

Francis was the first pope who earned my respect during my lifetime, and the first to embody Christian ideals. One would think that Francis would only appoint cardinals whose views lined up with his at moving the church along from a reactionary elitist institution to one which embraces all, especially the poor and disadvantaged, but that wasn't necessarily the case. In particular, I hope that Cardinal Peter Erdo isn't elected the next pope. This is from today's New York Times: "...Cardinal Peter Erdo of Hungary, 72, an expert on canon law, is expected to be a front-runner among cardinals who long for a return to the conservatism of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. John Paul II named the cleric archbishop of Eszterdom-Budapest in 2002, and the following year gave him a cardinal hat, making him — at 50 — the youngest cardinal at the time...".

Strictly speaking, only one is the Republic of the Congo--namely the former French Congo (Congo-Brazzaville). The other is the Democratic Republic of the Congo--the former Belgian Congo (Congo-Kinshasa).

The train transfers require going through immigration twice (in and out, and getting/having an ETA or visa for anyone other than UK or Irish Republic citizens), as well as significant walking. Unlikely to save time, and costs ££.

It was late morning, around 11 AM. There were several km of travel, including two tunnels, and multiple crossings in which the bus had to wait for aircraft or other vehicles. I'd be surprised the trip could be done within 5 minutes even under the best circumstances. The buses were scheduled 10 minutes apart, so a one-minute wait would have been a very luckily short wait.

Rather ridiculous list IMHO. CDG is a convoluted mess, with poorly-connected terminals. Heathrow is among the worst. I recently (less than 2 days ago) had to go from Terminal 5 to Terminal 3, and it involved a bus ride through various roads and tunnels. The ride itself was 17 minutes. Add to that an 8 minute wait for the bus. Plus, when one switches terminals one has to go through security all over again, meaning one essentially has to count on a good 40 minutes just to switch terminals. Gatwick is even worse. When connecting flights, you have to go through immigration as well as security all over again! (Most countries, including Europe, will require an ETA (essentially an eVisa) just to connect in Gatwick, even if you're not spending any time in the UK). I didn't even have to show my passport to go through immigration at LAX. A machine just scanned my eyes, and voila, they just said "You're done!". However, traffic at LAX can be very problematic. I really enjoy DCA.

No matter how many times I click "Delete and Report Spam" on my cell phone, I keep getting spam texts, especially from political organizations, but also from others (job offers, and so on). There are some data removal services which claim to at least "reduce" the amount of this spam, but I can't find any hard data about how much they reduce. Is it 90%? 20%? 50%? I'd only be interested in shelling out the $$ if the reduction is at least 80%. Anyone here have experience with these services? What kind of improvement can I expect?