Yes lower court judges are on the side of the public and the laws but the appellate courts have been stacked with conservative hacks and they overrule the lower courts. Then you have the SCOTUS which has been bought by the wealthiest republicans in the country. Hugs
Well I had hoped to hear from Schumer but at least he is demanding the reforms be in writing. He is getting a lot of pressure to do something this time. But he wanted to end the last shut down with a loss because he was afraid the republicans would destroy the filibuster. He settled for a vote that meant nothing and was totally performative. Will he do the same here? Hugs
Well at least he can articulate the points that need to be made in a strong manner. I liked him better clean shaven. My view on a beard is either grow one big, bushy, and long or don’t grow it. Scruffy is a sad look I think and reminds me of teenagers getting their first facial hairs. I wonder what political job he will run for next. I think Senate, or governor. Hugs
House Majority Leader Chris Croft suspended rules to force an emergency vote immediately after the Jan. 28, 2026, House debate on a bathroom bill forcing people to use facilities aligned with their biological sex at birth. The move pushed the bill through immediately instead of waiting one day as is usually required. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)
TOPEKA — The GOP-led Kansas House and Senate on Wednesday approved a “bathroom bill” targeting transgender people after House Democrats delayed passage by six hours, proposing multiple amendments to set the stage for a possible legal challenge.
House Majority Leader Chris Croft, an Overland Park Republican, called for emergency action to take the vote immediately after debating the bill instead of waiting a day as rules require. House Substitute for Senate Bill 244 passed on an 87-36 vote along party lines, with one Republican opposed.
The Senate concurred with the bill Wednesday evening, voting 30 to 9, also along party lines. The bill will go to Gov. Laura Kelly, who is expected to veto the legislation. It passed both chambers with the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.
Democrats fought the bill’s passage in the House, basing their arguments on two primary concepts — that the bill was rushed through the legislative process, giving little time for public input, and that it is an inhumane attack on transgender people.
“This bill spits on basic human decency, and I’m embarrassed we had to spend the entire day trying to defeat this thing,” said Rep. Susan Ruiz, D-Shawnee.
Ruiz also said she believed the bill was targeted at a specific legislator, referring to Rep. Abi Boatman, a Wichita Democrat who is a transgender woman. Boatman was selected to fill a vacant seat in early January.
“I have sat here for five and a half hours and listened to this entire room debate my humanity and my ability to participate in the most basic functions of society,” Boatman said at the close of debate. “From the bottom of my heart, I hope none of you have to ever sit through something like that.”
The legislation would require people to use the bathroom in government buildings that matches their biological sex at birth, rather than their gender, and requires governments to enforce the rule. Both the governmental body and individuals could face steep fines for violating the law.
The bill also requires that the sex listed on a driver’s license and birth certificate match the person’s biological sex at birth.
House Minority Leader Brandon Woodard, D-Lenexa, said in an interview after the House adjourned that the amendments and testimony presented by Democrats throughout the day “gave a lot of fodder” to Kansas courts to make a decision when the case is revived.
During debate, Democrats repeatedly referenced Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach failed attempt in court to ban gender marker changes on driver’s licenses. Woodard said he didn’t think this bill would hold up in court, either.
“As long as Kris Kobach’s our attorney general, I think he’s going to continue to lose in court,” he said.
Rep. Alexis Simmons, D-Topeka, talks about her experience with sexual assault during a Jan. 28, 2026, House debate on a bill to regulate who can use a bathroom in a government building. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)
Emotional testimony
It was a long debate full of emotion, sometimes anger, often frustration. Several times legislators were accused of impugning another legislator, and loud exclamations resonated from both sides of the chamber, including emphatic shouts of “oh, baloney.”
Rep. Alexis Simmons, D-Topeka, said she hadn’t planned to talk about a personal trauma but felt compelled to speak up when she heard others testify about how difficult it would be for women who have been raped to share a bathroom with a man.
She referred to testimony by Rep. Charlotte Esau, R-Olathe, who said the bill protected the “silent” women who are unwilling to speak up about being assaulted and who need women-only spaces to feel safe.
“I’m a victim of a sexual assault and never once did I think it was somebody else’s responsibility to manage my trauma,” Simmons said. “I feel enormous sympathy for victims of trauma, that goes without saying, but I do not appreciate my trauma being used to justify legislation that we know will cause harm to people.”
Simmons said she felt more threatened by men than she had ever felt by a transgender person.
“Here in this building, as an intern, as a committee assistant, as staff and as a legislator, I have been sexually harassed more than you would believe,” she said. “If we’re going to talk about women’s safety, we should address the real trauma, which is how women are treated, not putting the spotlight on one new member of our Legislature.”
Rep. John Carmichael, D-Wichita, rejected claims made by Rep. Susan Humphries, R-Wichita, and Rep. Bob Lewis, R-Garden City, who argued the bill would protect women.
The bill instead will force transgender men, who live as and look like men, to use a woman’s restroom, Carmichael said.
“He is going to sit down at the stall next to your granddaughter,” Carmichael said. “Is that what you really want? Not only that, there are other facilities which have locker rooms or the like. That hairy-faced man will be standing naked, showering next to your daughter. That’s what this bill requires.”
Other legislators spoke about concerns that the bill would embolden people to attack transgender individuals.
Rabbi Moti Rieber, with Kansas Interfaith Action, watched all six hours of debate, his face often grim.
“This bill is a combination of a culture war-obsessed supermajority and a broken legislative process, using every process trick in the book to get unnecessary and harmful legislation into law with no public input,” he said.
Rep. Dan Osman, D-Overland Park, opposes a bathroom bill during a six-hour House debate on Jan. 28, 2026. The bill forces people to use the bathroom that matches their sex at birth. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)
Process problems
Throughout the day, Democrats pointed to process problems surrounding the bill. The Judiciary Committee revealed a hearing on House Bill 2426 with less than 24-hour notice. At a later hearing, the bathroom portion of the bill was added with no advance notice and no chance for public input.
Then, in a procedure referred to as “gut and go,” the committee dumped the contents of HB 2426 into Senate Bill 244, which allowed the Senate to simply concur without ever holding a hearing on the overwritten bill.
“Procedurally, it is the absolute worst bill I have ever heard in the Kansas Legislature,” said Rep. Dan Osman, D-Overland Park, who also serves on the Judiciary Committee. “It was done with one purpose and one purpose only — to ensure that the absolute least number of people were available as opponents to this bill and that they were unaware that there would even be a hearing.”
Additionally, there is no fiscal note — a formal notice provided by budget analysts and researchers about how much a bill will cost — for the bathroom provision. That means it is unclear how much local governments could have to pay to ensure they are complying with the law.
Rep. Kirk Haskins, D-Topeka, said he was upset about the rushed schedule and the lack of a fiscal note.
“It upsets me when we rush things through that deal with my constituents, and my constituents, they don’t get a say. That’s what happened here,” he said. “This is a trend. I don’t know what’s going on. Yesterday, we had committee meetings without information. We heard a bill, we didn’t have a proponent, just because we have the power to do it.”
Some legislators focused on details, such as how enforcement would be handled and what would happen if someone violated the bathroom restrictions. Humphries, the Wichita Republican who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said complaints would be made to the governing body if someone suspected a person was using a bathroom that didn’t match their sex at birth.
The bill outlines fines for individuals and also that governing bodies could be held accountable — to fines as high as $25,000 — if they don’t require people to use bathrooms as outlined.
In an interview after the House adjourned, Haskins said he would be comfortable seeing Boatman, as a transgender woman, in the men’s restroom at the Statehouse.
“I’m comfortable with anybody in the restroom,” he said. “I think the bill is based upon fearmongering on issues that are not critical to Kansas, and wherever she wants to go, Rep. Boatman, I’ve got her back.”
Daily Kos Staff Emeritus (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)
Wednesday, January 14, 2026 at 2:03:31p EST
Courts provide extraordinary protection to the police. Courts provide extraordinary protection to agents of the federal government. Is it still possible to prosecute ICE agents for assault and murder?
For anyone who has watched the many videos showing ICE agent Jonathan Ross shooting and killing Minnesota mom Renee Nicole Good, the conclusion is obvious: This is murder.
Under ordinary circumstances, the Department of Justice would be investigating this incident, and Ross would be suspended awaiting the outcome of that investigation. But we are nowhere near ordinary circumstances. Instead, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has labeled Good a “domestic terrorist” and blessed Ross’s shooting without bothering to conduct any review, talk to any witnesses, or apparently watch any of the videos clearly showing that Ross was never under any conceivable threat.
Both Donald Trump and J.D. Vance have issued statements that are completely at odds with what happened on January 7. Noem has also stated that Ross “followed his training protocol” and was justified in his actions.
As far as the White House is concerned, Good is a dead terrorist and Ross is a hero. Fortunately, Noem and Trump don’t have the final say on who gets prosecuted.
Good’s tragedy—a young mother killed for no reason after dropping off her 6-year-old at school—is not a solitary event. Since Trump reentered the White House and began his immigrant pogrom, ICE agents have fired their weapons at civilians at least 16 times. As The Trace notes:
Renee Good was one of four people who have been killed. Another seven people have been injured.
At least 15 other civilians have been held at gunpoint. In addition, ICE has routinely brutalized both protestors and bystanders. That includes incidents such as shooting a priest in the head with pepper balls and teargassing infants.
Every day, ICE agents seem determined to show that they sincerely believe American citizens have no recourse but to submit to their abuse.
What’s most disheartening about all this is that so far … ICE is right. While several agents have been arrested for off-duty crimes, abusive behavior and deadly force have earned only praise from Trump, Noem, Vance, and other Republicans. Attorney General Pam Bondi has taken up none of these cases for review, and Trump has made it clear that he expects Americans to surrender their First Amendment rights … or else.
Q: "Do you believe that deadly force was necessary?"Trump: "It was highly disrespectful of law enforcement. The woman and her friend were highly disrespectful of law enforcement…Law enforcement should not be in a position where they have to put up with this stuff."
But if no one in the Justice Department will stand up for the Constitution—and they won’t—what’s left? Can state and local officials bring a rogue agency to heel?
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty have announced that they are investigating Good’s death. This is being made much more difficult because the FBI has taken apparently unprecedented action to block access to any evidence collected by federal officers.
Moriarty is soliciting additional videos and statements from witnesses. Ross or other ICE agents do not appear to have been made available to speak to state or county officials. How likely is it that charges will be leveled against Ross, or any of the other ICE agents involved in incidents of deadly force, assault, and abuse? What are the odds of any of them being convicted?
This is seriously difficult to determine.
First, there’s the question of whether or not an ICE agent involved in an immigration raid qualifies as a “peace officer.” It may seem like an obvious question, but relevant case law is pretty thin on the ground. ICE agents are federal officers, but the Venn diagram of their authority doesn’t cover the general enforcement powers of FBI agents or federal marshals. Their training is on immigration enforcement, and doesn’t include general public safety or community policing. They are not agents under the Department of Justice, but facilitators under DHS.
As an employee of ICE, Ross’s role is limited to carrying out immigration arrests. He’s certainly not empowered to stop or arrest people for partially blocking a street for a few minutes. The whole initial basis of the encounter is unjustifiable.
Best guess? No. ICE agents are not “peace officers,” no matter how many times they stencil “POLICE” on their vests. However, in any case against Ross or another ICE agent, the “peace officer” status is likely to draw a fresh review from the courts. That question will get definitively resolved, but probably only after working its way to the Supreme Court.
Even assuming that Ross is a peace officer under Minnesota state law, that doesn’t cut off the chance of prosecution.
In general, to bring charges against any law enforcement officer for using deadly force, the State has to show that the officer’s use of force was not justified. Justification can include any circumstance where the officer is under threat, or others may be under threat without immediate action. This alone is an enormous hurdle, because courts have repeatedly ruled that this doesn’t just protect officers who were genuinely under threat, but also those who felt threatened.
However, in a rare instance of the current Supreme Court not making things worse, last year’s Barnes v. Felix ruling tossed a decision from the hyper-conservative Fifth District. This ruling restricted the circumstances in which an officer can apply deadly force—or, at least, kept those circumstances from ballooning absurdly.
The description of the case by the Cato Institute makes it clear why Barnes may be very relevant to Good’s shooting.
In 2016, Ashtian Barnes was killed by Harris County, Texas, Deputy Constable Roberto Felix, following a traffic stop for unpaid tolls. As Barnes apparently tried to drive away, Felix jumped onto the moving car and indiscriminately opened fire, killing Barnes instantly.
The Fifth Circuit cleared Felix’s actions, writing that in the “moment of threat,” the officer was clearly in danger and was justified in shooting Barnes. However, the Supreme Court reversed that ruling.
Last spring, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a full review of the “totality of the circumstances,” including the nature of the offense and the events leading up to the incident, is relevant to determining the reasonableness of force.
In Barnes, the initial charges were barely sufficient to warrant a traffic stop in the first place, and Felix was under no threat until he placed himself in peril by grabbing onto Barnes’ car. He may have been frightened in the moment, and for the Fifth Circuit, that was enough, but in the totality of circumstances, it’s not enough.
That “totality of circumstances” requirement also happens to align with Minnesota law.
The circumstances in Barnes seem to almost perfectly overlap with what happened with Renee Good. As multiple videos have shown, Good’s car had only partially obstructed a residential street for a handful of minutes. Other vehicles were still getting by. She was already in the process of moving completely out of the way when Ross and other ICE agents approached the car, and would have been gone had she not stopped to wave another vehicle to pull around her. Her last exchange with Ross was, at worst, snarky, but non-confrontational and contained no threats.
It’s hard to believe that an actual police officer, authorized to deal with traffic situations, would have retained Good.
Assuming Ross was in front of her vehicle at all, he was only there because he violated DHS procedures by placing himself in front of the vehicle after Good was already attempting to leave the area. Good was traveling at low speed, was turned away from Ross and other officers, and had barely begun to move when Ross opened fire.
Good’s offense, if any, was minor. The threat against Ross, if any, was of his own making. The totality of circumstances in this case is not in Ross’s favor. That’s especially true of additional shots he fired at Good from beside or behind the vehicle. There are no reasonable grounds for these shots.
Hennepin County police, like those in many other jurisdictions, are actually forbidden from shooting into a moving vehicle in any circumstance. under the very reasonable understanding that a vehicle in motion doesn’t automatically stop if the driver is dead. The DHS issues these same guidelines to its agents.
This doesn’t mean that a Grand Jury might not still determine that Ross had a reason for his action. The number of cases in which officers have walked away from the use of deadly force seems almost limitless.
Another potential complication comes from the discovery that this is not the first time Ross has been involved in an incident with a car. Federal court records show that last June, Ross approached a car driven by a Guatemalan man, Roberto Carlos Muñoz, and attempted to apprehend him.
According to court testimony, Ross arrived in an unmarked vehicle, approached Muñoz, and ordered him to exit his car. When Muñoz didn’t respond, Ross punched through the side window and attempted to wrest control of the car. Muñoz responded by hitting the gas. As NBC News reported, Ross claimed to have used a taser in an attempt to stop Muñoz.
“I was yelling at him to stop,” Ross testified of Robert Muñoz-Guatemala, who was found guilty last month of assault on a federal officer with a dangerous or deadly weapon. “Over and over and over again at the top of my lungs.”
Ross said in his testimony that he feared for his life and fired his Taser repeatedly at Muñoz-Guatemala.
“It didn’t appear that it affected him at all,” Ross said.
“That very ICE officer nearly had his life ended, dragged by a car six months ago with 30 stitches in his leg, so he’s a little sensitive about being rammed by an automobile,” Vance said at the White House on Jan. 8.
However, what this testimony actually shows is that Ross already had a history of dealing poorly with people inside vehicles and of violating DHS guidelines. He either didn’t know how to properly and safely deal with such a situation or deliberately ignored the rules. If he was truthful in his claim that he attempted to use a taser in the earlier incident, this also shows an agent primed to skip over any attempt at non-lethal force and go straight for his gun.
Videos show that Ross pulled his gun before Good had begun to move forward, and fired even as he was still holding up his phone in his other hand. This could indicate that he was traumatized, or simply infuriated, by the earlier incident. In effect, he was primed to kill Good as retribution for the perceived wrong he had suffered from Muñoz.
In addition to murder, there are additional charges that could be levied against both Ross and other ICE agents on the scene—and these charges apply equally to peace officers and civilians.
Videos show that ICE agents refused to allow a doctor who was on the scene to approach the vehicle and blocked ambulance access to the area. Both of these are felony violations of Minnesota law with penalties up to five years imprisonment. If Good’s death was found to be connected to the delay of treatment, all involved could face additional charges of manslaughter.
However, there’s still one more hill to climb before charging Ross, and it’s a steep one.
Whether or not Ross is a peace officer, he certainly is a federal agent. Vance and others have claimed this gives him “absolute immunity” from state prosecution.
This is, in legal terms, utter bullshit.
Federal officers are broadly immune from state prosecution for taking actions specifically authorized by federal law in a case that goes back to an 1890 incident in which a federal agent shot a man who was threatening a member of the Supreme Court.
Neagle established a two-prong test for this type of immunity from state criminal law: (1) Was the officer performing an act that federal law authorized him to perform? (2) Were his actions necessary and proper to fulfilling his federal duties? If the federal officer satisfies this test, he or she is immune from prosecution for violation of state law.
The DOJ would certainly argue that Ross was acting to perform his duties as an ICE agent. Any State prosecution would need to show that Ross’s actions were excessive or unjustified.
This could be much harder than getting past the leeway given to police use of deadly force. Like the question of whether or not an ICE agent is a peace officer, there are few recent cases to reference, especially when it comes to an agent who was on duty. In short, States simply haven’t done much to test the immunity of federal officers, even when those officers have performed unnecessary acts of violence.
The murder of Good was clearly not required to enable the immigration enforcement actions of the ICE officers. That doesn’t mean a judge, jury, or federal court might not see a way to grant Ross his magic get-out-of-everything card.
Is Ross a peace officer? Probably not. Was this a justified shooting? No. Can he be prosecuted? Yes.
Will those charges survive federal challenges? Let’s find out.
Why does the the president need a slush fund in a country run by an autocracy that has already bribed him one. And where in hell did he sell the oil to? Hope fully the article will explain this. Hugs
“There is no basis in law for a president to set up an offshore account that he controls so that he can sell assets seized by the American military,” Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren told Semafor. “That is precisely a move that a corrupt politician would be attracted to.”
Donald Trump greets Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani during a meeting aboard Air Force One in Doha on October 25, 2025.
President Trump is keeping proceeds from the first sale of Venezuelan oil in an offshore bank account based in Qatar, according to reporting from Semafor. The sale was worth $500 million.
This unprecedented move is yet another middle finger to Venezuelan sovereignty and once again raises questions about the president’s cozy relationship with the Qatari government.
“There is no basis in law for a president to set up an offshore account that he controls so that he can sell assets seized by the American military,” Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren told Semafor. “That is precisely a move that a corrupt politician would be attracted to.”
That seems to be exactly what Trump is doing. Trump has vowed to “indefinitely” control Venezuela’s oil, claiming the proceeds will be given back to the U.S. and Venezuela.
Still, it remains unclear just how that money held in Qatar will benefit the Venezuelan people the administration claims to care about.
Scottie's Playtime 