Trump: No Judges of Mexican Descent Allowed

[alien42]

I'm none of those.

i guess we'll just have to disagree on that.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I have magical powers.

Why do you care about what my post count is anyway? Your interest in this is not healthy.

Apparently you have friends in high places. I was hoping to see a man of convictions...willing to sacrifice his post count as reparation for his blatantly racist insensitivities. I must admit that I'm disappointed on one hand but not surprised on the other. Please let me know who helped you out...I'm thinking of changing my name to figger and want to keep my post count too.

 

[buckshot24]

i guess we'll just have to disagree on that.

Yes we will.

 

[fskimospy]

Apparently you have friends in high places. I was hoping to see a man of convictions...willing to sacrifice his post count as reparation for his blatantly racist insensitivities. I must admit that I'm disappointed on one hand but not surprised on the other. Please let me know who helped you out...I'm thinking of changing my name to figger and but want to keep my post count.

Yes clearly, friends in high places, haha. They're coming for you. As for names, I'm not a mod and I can't speak to what they would think is appropriate for you. I would suggest a post in personal forum issues or perhaps a PM to a mod? Let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

That aside, I have no idea why you would think someone's post count is something to sacrifice and I certainly couldn't care less about it. If you happen to lose your post count with your impending name change feel free to ask if you can have mine. It's free to you! I do find your interest in this to be amusing though and as always your transparent concern trolling is pretty funny.

'That will teach him! His forum score will be deleted!' lol.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Sorry but now I can't stop thinking about Fuck Eskimos

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yes clearly, friends in high places, haha. They're coming for you. As for names, I'm not a mod and I can't speak to what they would think is appropriate for you. I would suggest a post in personal forum issues or perhaps a PM to a mod? Let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

That aside, I have no idea why you would think someone's post count is something to sacrifice and I certainly couldn't care less about it. If you happen to lose your post count with your impending name change feel free to ask if you can have mine. It's free to you! I do find your interest in this to be amusing though and as always your transparent concern trolling is pretty funny.

'That will teach him! His forum score will be deleted!' lol.

And I'm amused as well...you're the gift that just keeps giving. lol

 

[glenn1]

Only to morons. Only a full fledged con artist has the audacity to call out a judges ancestry as a reason for bias in the cons fraud case. Hilarious. No one buys it, not even his own party lol. Will be fun to watch trump lose. Will he sue America and call all of us idiots? Probably.

We cite ancestry as a reason to recuse jurors all the time, so why should a judge be different? Hell, some of the people complaining about this story would likely be the ones leading the charge of "unfairness" if the racial composition of a jury wasn't "correct" for the defendant.

That being said, Trump's claim is ridiculous bullshit although he has every right to make whatever legal argument he's allowed to no matter how specious.

 

[ivwshane]

And I'm amused as well...you're the gift that just keeps giving. lol

Are you done derailing this thread?

 

[Subyman]

You don't know that. You said there were "tenuous ties" being made and when I point out that it isn't a tenuous tie you move the goal posts. The group he is a part of called for a boycott against Trump and all of his business dealings.
I'm not referring to La Raza.

I know trump did not call out La Raza when he was ranting about the mans heritage. Even in the Tapper interview he hardly mentions it and instead says his main reason for bias is because trump is building a wall and the judge is Mexican (even though he said he will do great with Hispanics.) His supporters started that after his initial speech. You'd think he would have mentioned it in his initial rant if that was his concern. It was not.

What group are you talking about? The only one mentioned in Curiels connection is La Raza.

 

[werepossum]

I've got a question about this. I've heard the Geller firm was appointed to the class case in 2014 by Judge Curiel. Just curious, what does that mean to you?

To me, if you say a judge appointed an attorney to a plaintiff/defendant, that means the judge picked the lawyer/law firm from amongst many, just picked a name from a hat, so to speak.

But that's not what transpired, at least completely.

The Geller firm has actually been intimately involved in this case since 2010 when they filed a lawsuit against Trump U. and Trump in CA for their client, Tarla Makaeff (Makaeff chose the law firm, the judge didn't appoint them to her). The firm was the original lead firm in this now messy situation Trump finds himself in.

(This is one of the earliest filings on the Makaeff v. Trump case I can find, dated Apr. 30, 2010)

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2723645-Makaeff-v-Trump-University.html

So, when the judge appointed Geller as the lead attorney in the class action lawsuit, now named Low v. Trump, it was because they'd already been very much involved in the litigation from day one, and because it was very easy to certify the law firm to take over the entire class suit because the Geller firm is a world renowned firm in these sorts of cases.

Interesting, thanks.

It isn't a huge issue for me as I've said pretty consistently that he shouldn't have brought up the judge's race. But "raza" does mean race, there is no doubt about that it doesn't mean "human race".

He didn't say that they can't be fair he said it is possible that they could have a bias.
Since he only said that it was "possible" and not "they can't be fair", you're wrong.

Seems to be a staple on the left, insisting that whatever they say actually means something else.

so, 580 posts and we still know that Trump is a racist cuntburger.

Funny how that works, eh? Trump is a "racist cuntburger" for calling out a nationality (there are actually a fair number of races among Mexicans, whereas "Mexican" is not in and of itself a race) and yet the judge who is a member of "The Race" Lawyers is above reproach.

I begin to discern why you guys on the left are so befuddled over the meaning of "is".

 

[Jhhnn]

He's apparently killed his chances at least a dozen times now.

More or less. Final destruction is scheduled for Nov 8. Have fun in the meanwhile.

 

[Subyman]

We cite ancestry as a reason to recuse jurors all the time, so why should a judge be different? Hell, some of the people complaining about this story would likely be the ones leading the charge of "unfairness" if the racial composition of a jury wasn't "correct" for the defendant.

That being said, Trump's claim is ridiculous bullshit although he has every right to make whatever legal argument he's allowed to no matter how specious.

So your second paragraph refutes your first. I guess you agree with me then.

 

[fskimospy]

And I'm amused as well...you're the gift that just keeps giving. lol

Why thank you! I feel the same way.

 

[werepossum]

I don't think any eskimos would be offended by a man who has dedicated so much time to helping the handicapped posters here

Leftists are not necessarily handicapped, dude.

I have magical powers.

Why do you care about what my post count is anyway? Your interest in this is not healthy.

Okay, I did laugh out loud at that.

Sorry but now I can't stop thinking about Fuck Eskimos

I definitely laughed out loud at that!

 

[glenn1]

So your second paragraph refutes your first. I guess you agree with me then.

The first paragraph lays out the legal case that's often made; namely that race, ethnic background, etc. can have an impact in someone's ability to be impartial. I don't think that's really in question by anyone, including you.

The second paragraph expresses my opinion that even if the background of the judge compromised his impartiality, that it wouldn't be to the extent that it would prejudice Trump's ability to receive justice for several reasons:

1. IMHO the judge would be minimally influenced if at all; thinking someone is an assclown or has stupid ideas doesn't mean you can't still treat them fairly
2. The judge has professional and ethical obligations that I fully believe he will honor
3. I trust the judge's ability to apply the applicable law


Basically I trust the judge's judgment more than I do Trump's. But he should still be able to bring up the legal argument. Indeed, I think Trump's lawyer probably has a legal obligation to present the argument even if it's stupid because otherwise he wouldn't be providing effective counsel. Just like your lawyer is always going to ask for summary judgement even though you almost certainly won't get it, likewise should Trump submit this (IMHO completely futile) argument that the judge can't be impartial.

 

[fskimospy]

The first paragraph lays out the legal case that's often made; namely that race, ethnic background, etc. can have an impact in someone's ability to be impartial. I don't think that's really in question by anyone, including you.

The second paragraph expresses my opinion that even if the background of the judge compromised his impartiality, that it wouldn't be to the extent that it would prejudice Trump's ability to receive justice for several reasons:

1. IMHO the judge would be minimally influenced if at all; thinking someone is an assclown or has stupid ideas doesn't mean you can't still treat them fairly
2. The judge has professional and ethical obligations that I fully believe he will honor
3. I trust the judge's ability to apply the applicable law


Basically I trust the judge's judgment more than I do Trump's. But he should still be able to bring up the legal argument. Indeed, I think Trump's lawyer probably has a legal obligation to present the argument even if it's stupid because otherwise he wouldn't be providing effective counsel. Just like your lawyer is always going to ask for summary judgement even though you almost certainly won't get it, likewise should Trump submit this (IMHO completely futile) argument that the judge can't be impartial.

From my understanding the prevailing legal wisdom on this is that someone's ethnicity or membership in professional organizations has been so firmly established in the law as not representing grounds for recusal that Trump's lawyers would place themselves at risk of sanction by the California Bar if they tried to put them forth. People have been disbarred for this.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/08/politics/donald-trump-federal-judge-recusal/

And in 1996, attorneys Larry Klayman and Paul Orfanedes questioned the fairness of U.S. District Court Judge Denny Chin. They pointed out in a letter that the judge was an appointee of President Bill Clinton and an Asian-American, who they claimed could be biased due to Klayman's involvement in litigation against Democratic donor John Huang and other Asian-Americans.

Chin said to Klayman, "You asked questions of the Court, at least in part, because of my race?"

"In part," Klayman responded. "I, for instance, would not sit as a Jewish American on a case that involved a Palestinian."

Chin said the question was "offensive." He ordered Klayman and Orfanedes never to appear before him again, and to notify any other judges they appeared before that they had been sanctioned.

An appeals court upheld the punishment in 1998, saying, "A suggestion that a judge cannot administer the law fairly because of the judge's racial and ethnic heritage is extremely serious, and should not be made without a factual foundation going well beyond the judge's membership in a particular racial or ethnic group."

With that in mind it seems unlikely they will be putting forth that argument.

 

[Subyman]

The first paragraph lays out the legal case that's often made; namely that race, ethnic background, etc. can have an impact in someone's ability to be impartial. I don't think that's really in question by anyone, including you.

The second paragraph expresses my opinion that even if the background of the judge compromised his impartiality, that it wouldn't be to the extent that it would prejudice Trump's ability to receive justice for several reasons:

1. IMHO the judge would be minimally influenced if at all; thinking someone is an assclown or has stupid ideas doesn't mean you can't still treat them fairly
2. The judge has professional and ethical obligations that I fully believe he will honor
3. I trust the judge's ability to apply the applicable law


Basically I trust the judge's judgment more than I do Trump's. But he should still be able to bring up the legal argument. Indeed, I think Trump's lawyer probably has a legal obligation to present the argument even if it's stupid because otherwise he wouldn't be providing effective counsel. Just like your lawyer is always going to ask for summary judgement even though you almost certainly won't get it, likewise should Trump submit this (IMHO completely futile) argument that the judge can't be impartial.

Judges are already vetted. The recusal process is on a much different level compared to the to the jury selection process. Jurors are random people who must be generally vetted. Judges have already been examined with a fine toothed comb before ever taking the bench. So basic things like extreme prejudices or egregious biases which may be present in random citizens are filtered before becoming a judge. A jury also needs to represent the district, so the make up is usually selected with demographics in mind.

Normal recusals are for conflicts such as having a financial interest in one side (such as stock in a company), relatives or friends on one side, etc. I haven't heard an argument for a judge needing to have the same political ideology as the defendant, as Trump supporters are claiming (La Raza.) Trump's argument is even more base, he's saying the man's heritage makes him too bias to properly work the case because Trump has an anti-immigration policy.

Curiel may not like Trump, but there is nothing in Curiel's performance so far that even hints at bias. This case is likely the most examined case of the last year, so Curiel will certainly be by the book as he has been so far.

 

[glenn1]

From my understanding the prevailing legal wisdom on this is that someone's ethnicity or membership in professional organizations has been so firmly established in the law as not representing grounds for recusal that Trump's lawyers would place themselves at risk of sanction by the California Bar if they tried to put them forth. People have been disbarred for this.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/08/politics/donald-trump-federal-judge-recusal/



With that in mind it seems unlikely they will be putting forth that argument.

Sounds like they'll be spared the time of even making a kabuki show pointless argument then, not that it stopped their client.

 

[zinfamous]

for rational and reasonable people, yes.

for racist, bigots and xenophobes, not so much.

I'm none of those.

:hmm:

 

[Moonbeam]

Only to morons. Only a full fledged con artist has the audacity to call out a judges ancestry as a reason for bias in the cons fraud case. Hilarious. No one buys it, not even his own party lol. Will be fun to watch trump lose. Will he sue America and call all of us idiots? Probably.

How would he be wrong to call you all idiots? I am watching in a state of shock at the degree to which the liberals posting here are willing to abase themselves. The hate, the fury, the partisan petty bias and demonization of the other has become as apparent to me as your lying desperate need to tar Trump with racism is to me. You have shown your true under bellies and they are terrifying. You have fully manifested everything that you hate. I can only thank you for opening my eyes.

 

[Jhhnn]

The first paragraph lays out the legal case that's often made; namely that race, ethnic background, etc. can have an impact in someone's ability to be impartial. I don't think that's really in question by anyone, including you.

The second paragraph expresses my opinion that even if the background of the judge compromised his impartiality, that it wouldn't be to the extent that it would prejudice Trump's ability to receive justice for several reasons:

1. IMHO the judge would be minimally influenced if at all; thinking someone is an assclown or has stupid ideas doesn't mean you can't still treat them fairly
2. The judge has professional and ethical obligations that I fully believe he will honor
3. I trust the judge's ability to apply the applicable law


Basically I trust the judge's judgment more than I do Trump's. But he should still be able to bring up the legal argument. Indeed, I think Trump's lawyer probably has a legal obligation to present the argument even if it's stupid because otherwise he wouldn't be providing effective counsel. Just like your lawyer is always going to ask for summary judgement even though you almost certainly won't get it, likewise should Trump submit this (IMHO completely futile) argument that the judge can't be impartial.

That sounds peachy until one realizes that the underlying rationale only sells to bigots & the reasons for saying anything at all are damage control. Like this-

"What's in the released materials isn't true because the judge is a Mexican who hates the Wall & persecutes me."

It's ethnic slander against Curiel & the same bullshit commonly expressed by a variety of perps, like this-

"What's in the police report isn't true because the judge is a woman who hates men & persecutes me."

 

[Subyman]

How would he be wrong to call you all idiots? I am watching in a state of shock at the degree to which the liberals posting here are willing to abase themselves. The hate, the fury, the partisan petty bias and demonization of the other has become as apparent to me as your lying desperate need to tar Trump with racism is to me. You have shown your true under bellies and they are terrifying. You have fully manifested everything that you hate. I can only thank you for opening my eyes.

Oh moonie. I think you need to meditate more. You are disappointing! Trump called a natural born US citizen judge a Mexican and said he couldn't do his job because of his heritage even though the judge has been more than fair. Calling out the logical error in Trump's assessment is not desperate and its not a lie. Trump tars himself.

I don't care for Hillary and I don't like Trump at all. We have two bad choices, but at least I know what I'm getting with Hillary. :\

 

[glenn1]

That sounds peachy until one realizes that the underlying rationale only sells to bigots & the reasons for saying anything at all are damage control. Like this-

"What's in the released materials isn't true because the judge is a Mexican who hates the Wall & persecutes me."

It's ethnic slander against Curiel & the same bullshit commonly expressed by a variety of perps, like this-

"What's in the police report isn't true because the judge is a woman who hates men & persecutes me."

I don't care if it's Hitler on trial saying he couldn't get an impartial trail because of "the Jews," people can use their First Amendment rights to defend themselves however they want including in ways that are stupid.

 

[Subyman]

I don't care if it's Hitler on trial saying he couldn't get an impartial trail because of "the Jews," people can use their First Amendment rights to defend themselves however they want including in ways that are stupid.

I don't think anyone is saying Trump doesn't have a right to say what he wants.

 

[buckshot24]

Oh moonie. I think you need to meditate more. You are disappointing! Trump called a natural born US citizen judge a Mexican and said he couldn't do his job because of his heritage even though the judge has been more than fair.

Where did he say that he couldn't do the job?