HEADLINES: 2026

$800k ? And where does that $money come from? The taxpayers?
I expect that much (most?) of that money will be covered by insurance although I have no idea what sort of deductible the County's insurance policy has (it could well be $1 million or more).

Do the "women of color", the ones harmed here, get any share of that $800k ?
The "women of color" are the "public defenders" so the money was awarded to them. So they'll get the money - I assume that they legal fees are included so just how much their lawyers will take is a different question.
 
"I expect that much (most?) of that money will be covered by insurance although I have no idea what sort of deductible the County's insurance policy has (it could well be $1 million or more)." S2 #21
The notion that a policy holder will ever get the better of an insurer seems illusory to me.
In the short term paying off a large claim might seem to put the policy holder ahead. BUT !
Long term, the payments on such insurance policy increases, right?

Seems like another example of "punish the victim". The one to be punished is the thug that obstructed the women in the first place.

"The "women of color" are the "public defenders"" S2 #21
Oh.

So why didn't they ring the law judge's smartphone and ask him to order the sheriff's deputy to stop obstructing justice.
 
New Mexico to prevent ICE operations in the state.

{...
SANTA FE, N.M. — Lawmakers plan to address several key issues in New Mexico and Democrats want that to include action on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Democratic leaders in both the New Mexico House and Senate say they plan to hit the ground running with proposals to ban federal immigration detention operations in the state.

Currently, New Mexico has three detention centers with federal contracts to detain migrants in ICE custody. The facilities are in Torrance, Cibola and Otero counties – and have all faced complaints of human rights violations over the years. One of those instances also resulted in an ongoing wrongful death lawsuit over the apparent suicide of a 23-year-old Brazilian man at the Torrance County facility.

New Mexico’s congressional delegation has made several calls for the end of ICE operations in the state. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham even considered adding an “immigration detention operations ban” to the special session agenda in October.

Now, state legislative leaders say it’s full steam ahead.

“New Mexico should not be in the business of for-profit detention of innocent people. We’re going to move quickly, we’re going to move swiftly. We’re going to move those bills out of the house within the first 10 days or so,” Speaker of the House Javier Martinez said.

Martinez said this year’s proposals will look similar to years past. Past proposals would’ve banned local governments, such as Torrance County, from entering new contracts with ICE – and would force them to end existing contracts.

While lawmakers haven’t filed an actual bill on this, supporters at the New Mexico Immigration Law Center issued the following statement to KOB 4:

“The Immigrant Safety Act sends a clear message: New Mexico will not be complicit in a system that harms people and erodes trust in our communities. We are grateful to the legislators and community partners who have worked over the years toward keeping families together and call on our leaders to pass this critical legislation.”

Republican lawmakers – and even some Democrats – opposed previous attempts to ban ICE detention operations due to the potential loss of jobs and revenue in rural communities.

New Mexico Senate Republican Leader Bill Sharer issued this statement in response to this story:

“Instead of addressing the true causes of New Mexico’s crime crisis, Democrat lawmakers have instead focused their attention on political posturing. The only outcome of “banning” ICE Detention Facilities in New Mexico would be the destruction of New Mexico jobs and economic support for local communities. Furthermore, by disrupting the enforcement of federal law with this virtue-signaling, Democrat lawmakers would enable violent criminals, who are in the United States illegally, the ability to continue terrorizing our neighborhoods. These reckless proposals only shield people like Mahmoud Telfah, an illegal alien from Jordan who was recently convicted in Albuquerque for soliciting a 15-year-old for sex.
...}

 
1769133808609.png

‘I’m for it’: Johnson endorses impeachment for judges against Trump

The speaker was previously cool to the conservative push to oust judges who rule against the administration.

Speaker Mike Johnson now supports the push inside his party to bring impeachment articles against judges perceived as antagonistic of President Donald Trump’s agenda — a notable shift for the Louisiana Republican who over the summer sought to squelch such effort.

“I’m for it,” Johnson told reporters at his weekly news conference Wednesday, responding to the question of whether he would endorse impeaching judges who have ruled against the administration.

A symbol of this ongoing effort has been James Boasberg, a U.S. district judge who ruled last year that the Trump administration’s abrupt deportation of 137 men violated their due process rights and defied court orders to keep them in U.S. custody.

Trump allies and Hill conservatives have argued .....

MORE>
 
View attachment 3860

‘I’m for it’: Johnson endorses impeachment for judges against Trump

The speaker was previously cool to the conservative push to oust judges who rule against the administration.

Speaker Mike Johnson now supports the push inside his party to bring impeachment articles against judges perceived as antagonistic of President Donald Trump’s agenda — a notable shift for the Louisiana Republican who over the summer sought to squelch such effort.

“I’m for it,” Johnson told reporters at his weekly news conference Wednesday, responding to the question of whether he would endorse impeaching judges who have ruled against the administration.

A symbol of this ongoing effort has been James Boasberg, a U.S. district judge who ruled last year that the Trump administration’s abrupt deportation of 137 men violated their due process rights and defied court orders to keep them in U.S. custody.

Trump allies and Hill conservatives have argued .....

MORE>

It would seem that since judges are the impartial balance, impeaching judges would seem illegal by the executive?
It would seem to me that only other judges could impeach a judge, and that there would have to be evidence of a crime, not just a ruling the executive did not like?
 
"Speaker Mike Johnson now supports the push inside his party to bring impeachment articles against judges perceived as antagonistic of President Donald Trump’s agenda ..." S2 #24
"It would seem that since judges are the impartial balance" R5 #25
The three branches of U.S. federal government are:
legislative (Constitution Article #1),
executive (Constitution Article #2),
judicial (Constitution Article #3),

Demonstrating the "separate but equal" character of these 3.

Just what enumerated Article #1 obligation is Speaker Johnson threatening to execute / enforce?

Does Speaker Johnson mean to suggest any judicial ruling that does not support the executive branch is grounds for impeachment?
 
Back
Top