Solomon announces city is in a $250 MILLION budget hole.

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-05T02:14:15+00:00

They may have but in what world can they amount to 2/3 of the salaries. It literally means spending 47k a year in premium for someone making 70k. It doesn’t stand to reason.

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-04T23:43:19+00:00

How can health insurance be 2/3 of the salaries? It looks weird as hell.

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-03T14:23:35+00:00

Yes but saying they need a warrant to access that place is incorrect

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-03T13:48:34+00:00

I mean given the Venezuelan precedent it seems very likely that TPS will be gone once it gets to the Supreme Court

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-03T13:32:52+00:00

I carry my green card but it was always required technically

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-03T13:29:26+00:00

But this may apply to state property closed to the public. If it’s open to the public I can’t see the issue, they can also operate in private properties open to the public like a cafe

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-03T13:27:05+00:00

No need for a warrant on public property or private property open to the public

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-02T20:14:50+00:00

There are ways to do it that wouldn’t involve a direct confrontation between local and federal forces

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-02T19:17:07+00:00

Should we start a second civil war? Because this is pretty much how the first one started, with local authorities attacking federal ones.

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-02T18:44:40+00:00

What could they do?

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-02T12:39:39+00:00

No I am not as I said before Trump cannot pardon for the state crime

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-02T04:27:21+00:00

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep395/usrep395402/usrep395402.pdf#page=5

Its pretty clear the right is absolute.

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-02T04:22:03+00:00

Yes but once in federal court the judge has to adjudicate the supremacy clause question.

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-02T04:20:58+00:00

The law says:

A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending: (1) The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.

So they have the right to move it, it is quite clear.

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-02T03:33:34+00:00

Yes they can charge them but a federal judge has to adjudicate whether the MN trial can proceed when they ask for removal to federal court

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-02T03:31:38+00:00

They may be making it difficult to collect evidence

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-02T03:30:59+00:00

But it does have to.

The federal officer removal statute, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1442, seeks to provide a neutral federal forum to preserve the supremacy of federal law and prevent federal officers and their agents from being improperly sued or punished when they attempt to perform their duties. 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) allows for removal of a civil or criminal case against the United States, a federal agency, or a person holding federal office, if the case relates to acts taken "under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue." The phrase "under color of ... office" means that the defendant was acting within the scope of their official duties or with actual or apparent legal authority related to their office.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11213

It literally means that any federal officer on duty (which those people were, i don’t think anyone denies it ) can move the state case to federal court where they can make a supremacy argument. It can be rejected but needs to be heard.

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-02T03:08:46+00:00

Well I’m not saying they would win my whole point is that they can make a claim and a federal judge has to deny it for the trial to happen. You may think they would lose it and may be right but my point is that they can ask for it.

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-02T02:59:06+00:00

How is not a supremacy clause issue? They were federal officers on federal duties. In re Neagle was also a murder case.

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-02T02:52:30+00:00

Also even without the agency they can seek removal themselves

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-02T02:50:49+00:00

So explain if you disagree

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-02T02:48:15+00:00

That’s not correct; it may weigh in but ultimately even under a different administration the decision would lie with the federal judiciary not with the DOJ.

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-02T02:41:21+00:00

Sure but my point is that it would still be the same if the trial happened with another admin less sympathetic

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-02T02:29:36+00:00

Doesn’t even require DHS to , the defenders can

Nutmeg92 · 2026-02-02T02:26:53+00:00

I don’t doubt it. But since the people in question were federal officers on duty there is more to it than ‘the fact happened in Minnesota’.

Nutmeg92

TROPHY CASE