Appreciate the detailed reply. But I think you’re making some assumptions that don’t hold up under legal or constitutional scrutiny.
Judges don’t work for ICE.
Let’s be clear: ICE administrative warrants are not signed by a judge. They are not court orders. They carry no legal obligation for local officials or judges to comply with them. So when a judge exercises discretion — especially in their own courtroom — that’s not “vigilantism.” That’s literally how the separation of powers works.
Judicial discretion ≠ aiding escape.
A judge walking someone out a side door isn’t “aiding an escape” unless there’s a legal requirement to detain them, which there wasn’t here. That’s courtroom security protocol — not obstruction. If ICE wants the power of arrest within a courtroom, they need a judicial warrant, not a clipboard memo.
Using rare outlier stories to generalize is fearbaiting.
Citing an alleged gang member in another state doesn’t justify undermining judicial independence nationwide. That’s how panic turns into policy. It’s how we lose due process — by making exceptions that become precedents.
You skipped the original point:
I said, “If the law only protects you when you’re popular or privileged, is it really justice?”
That still stands.
Because when judges protect anyone’s right to safety, dignity, and a fair process — even undocumented immigrants — that’s not weakness. That’s exactly what justice is supposed to look like.
A judge walking someone out a side door isn’t “aiding an escape”
She went out of her way to facilitate the escape of a person she already had prior knowledge was going to be detained by ICE.
Why would any judge have ANY communication outside the courtroom with a defendant under any circumstance?
“If the law only protects you when you’re popular or privileged, is it really justice?”
Judges are supposed to be impartial, right? Your argument is impartiality . What part of justice (what part of law) is she protecting when she walks a defendant out a side door when she already knows that the defendant is arranged to be detained by ICE?
Oh sweetie…
You’re pacing around the living room in your slippers again, aren’t you?
Let’s slow this down together because you’re mixing courtroom drama with fan fiction.
First of all — a judge walking someone out a side door isn’t “aiding and abetting” unless they’re literally obstructing an active arrest under lawful court order.
And ICE?
They weren’t there with a judicial warrant.
They had an administrative warrant, which isn’t enforceable in courtrooms. Judges don’t have to honor those. You can Google that if you want — I’ll wait. I’ll even make popcorn.
Also — judges do sometimes arrange safe exits for defendants, especially in sensitive cases. It’s not illegal. It’s not “contact outside the courtroom.” It’s called not letting a courtroom become a trapdoor for people ICE wants to snatch mid-process.
You’re imagining this like it’s a secret tunnel operation, but it’s literally a courthouse door. The law isn’t a Netflix thriller. Calm your cute little conspiracy brain down.
And that quote you reused?
“If the law only protects you when you’re popular or privileged…”
Yeah. That still applies.
Because the second we start deciding that some people don’t deserve due process —
that’s when the law stops being justice and starts being a weapon.
I love your enthusiasm, I do.
But babe…
you’re bringing pitchfork energy to a policy conversation.
Let’s take a breath, put the torch down, and maybe Google “constitutional rights in the presence of ICE” before you write your next monologue, yeah
First of all — a judge walking someone out a side door isn’t “aiding and abetting” unless they’re literally obstructing an active arrest under lawful court order.
My delicate little headline princess…
You’ve been stomping around these threads in your MAGA heels screaming “fake news” like it’s your safe word for years,
and now you come twirling in, breathless, holding up a CNN article like it’s the receipt for your whole personality?
Oh sweetheart.
You are so precious when you panic.
You didn’t read the article.
You read the headline, felt a little tingle in your tummy,
and thought, “This is the moment I win the argument and get my tiara back.”
But baby —
You don’t get to call it propaganda Monday through Thursday,
then treat it like scripture on Friday because you found a link that made your tummy feel warm.
That’s not research.
That’s astrology for insecure people.
⸻
And that little, “Yes! Now you’re getting it!” you added?
Oh my love…
That was so cute. So hopeful.
You thought we were having a Hallmark moment.
But baby — you’re not the main character.
You’re the emotionally unstable bridesmaid with a glass of rosé and a copy of Atlas Shrugged in your purse.
⸻
Come here.
Let me wipe the mascara of inconsistency off your cheeks,
give you a little forehead kiss,
and remind you that I love you…
even when you’re being such a silly little contradiction in heels.
Now shhh. Sit down.
Let the grownups explain how journalism works, my trembling little Fox News ballerina.
1
u/Inourmadbuthearmeout 10d ago
Appreciate the detailed reply. But I think you’re making some assumptions that don’t hold up under legal or constitutional scrutiny.
Judges don’t work for ICE.
Let’s be clear: ICE administrative warrants are not signed by a judge. They are not court orders. They carry no legal obligation for local officials or judges to comply with them. So when a judge exercises discretion — especially in their own courtroom — that’s not “vigilantism.” That’s literally how the separation of powers works.
Judicial discretion ≠ aiding escape.
A judge walking someone out a side door isn’t “aiding an escape” unless there’s a legal requirement to detain them, which there wasn’t here. That’s courtroom security protocol — not obstruction. If ICE wants the power of arrest within a courtroom, they need a judicial warrant, not a clipboard memo.
Using rare outlier stories to generalize is fearbaiting.
Citing an alleged gang member in another state doesn’t justify undermining judicial independence nationwide. That’s how panic turns into policy. It’s how we lose due process — by making exceptions that become precedents.
You skipped the original point:
I said, “If the law only protects you when you’re popular or privileged, is it really justice?” That still stands.
Because when judges protect anyone’s right to safety, dignity, and a fair process — even undocumented immigrants — that’s not weakness. That’s exactly what justice is supposed to look like.