Trump: No Judges of Mexican Descent Allowed

[Subyman]

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

Saying a judge is biased, unfair, and a hater is saying he can't give a fair trial, which is the judge's job.

 

[buckshot24]

Saying a judge is biased, unfair, and a hater is saying he can't give a fair trial, which is the judge's job.

Ah, so you're interpreting it that way, he didn't say what you said he did you're just taking it that way. Maybe you got it wrong?

Is saying a journalist is biased the same as saying they simply couldn't be impartial? I don't think so.

 

[werepossum]

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.

Agreed, and well said. Although I don't think Trump's lawyers would dare make that legal argument. Not only is it politically incorrect enough to risk sanction (aka a tantrum), losing tends to increase the chance you'll lose again. It's one thing to ask for summary judgment - that's just protection against a malpractice charge. It's quite another to bring an actual legal argument based on the judge's ethnicity.

 

[ivwshane]

Ah, so you're interpreting it that way, he didn't say what you said he did you're just taking it that way. Maybe you got it wrong?

Is saying a journalist is biased the same as saying they simply couldn't be impartial? I don't think so.

Yeah! That's exactly what it means! Are you really this fucking stupid? Serious question.

 

[fskimospy]

Ah, so you're interpreting it that way, he didn't say what you said he did you're just taking it that way. Maybe you got it wrong?

Is saying a journalist is biased the same as saying they simply couldn't be impartial? I don't think so.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biased

Antonyms
disinterested, equal, equitable, evenhanded, fair, impartial,neutral, nonpartisan, objective, unbiased, unprejudiced

 

[buckshot24]

Yeah! That's exactly what it means!

Then people can't put their biases aside and rule impartially. This judge should be recused in that case.

To be biased against something means you're inclined against it but that doesn't mean you can't overcome that bias and make a fair judgment about it.

 

[glenn1]

Yeah! That's exactly what it means! Are you really this fucking stupid? Serious question.

Splitting hairs but I'd argue they were separate concepts. Someone with a bias would typically have his judgement impaired because of something general he knew about a situation, whereas someone who wasn't impartial would be affected by something specific.

Example 1: He was prejudiced against blacks, therefore he had a bias against black defendants.

Example 2: Since the defendant was the boyfriend of his daughter, he had a tough time being impartial.

Example 3: Since the defendant was the black boyfriend of his daughter, he had a tough time not giving him impartial treatment in his favor despite his natural bias against African-Americans.

 

[Subyman]

Ah, so you're interpreting it that way, he didn't say what you said he did you're just taking it that way. Maybe you got it wrong?

Is saying a journalist is biased the same as saying they simply couldn't be impartial? I don't think so.

Trump said he is a "hater." That goes much further than a bias that could be overcome lol. He also said the judge had an "absolute conflict of interest." If that isn't grounds for not being able to do the job, then I don't know what is.

I read it the way Trump meant it. He's a man of simple words, should be easy to suss out the meaning right?

 

[buckshot24]

Trump said he is a "hater." That goes much further than a bias that could be overcome lol. He also said the judge had an "absolute conflict of interest." If that isn't grounds for not being able to do the job, then I don't know what is.

I read it the way Trump meant it. He's a man of simple words, should be easy to suss out the meaning right?

Then it isn't because of his heritage.

 

[emperus]

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.

This issue has already been tried and adjudicated. A justices race is is not a means to recuse them. Even attempting to claim that is in fact a sactionable offense. There has been a lot written about this over the last few days.

Here is one.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...o-build-a-wall-to-exclude-illegal-immigrants/
And another
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ith-calling-out-judges-for-their-race/485732/

Here is a quote from that one

Eventually, Chin dismissed Klayman’s client’s case with a few choice words for the way counsel had conducted it. Not long after, the judge got a letter from Klayman and his co-counsel, Paul Orfanedes, asking a few “questions” about the judge’s Asian American background and mentioning another case they had brought against the Clinton administration. They then filed a brief questioning the judge’s
...
In a written response, Chin noted that he hadn’t been aware of Klayman’s other lawsuit. As for the questions about his race, he said, “This sentiment is absurd and demeans me individually and the Court as a whole.”

He then lowered the boom. Klayman and Orfanedes were required to withdraw as counsel from the case and would not be permitted to appear in Chin’s court on any matter ever again. They would be required to show his opinion to any other judge in the district in any future case. The court clerk would also report the sanctions to every court where they held bar membership.
...
Klayman and Orfanedes recruited former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark (the lawyer for, among others, Lyndon LaRouche, Slobodan Milošević, and the Branch Davidians) to appeal the sanctions. The Second Circuit briskly affirmed Chin’s order. “Courts have repeatedly held that matters such as race or ethnicity are improper bases for challenging a judge's impartiality,” wrote the chief judge, Ralph Winter, a Reagan appointee. “Nor should one charge that a judge is not impartial solely because an attorney is embroiled in a controversy with the administration that appointed the judge. … Finally, appointment by a particular administration and membership in a particular racial or ethnic group are in combination not grounds for questioning a judge's impartiality. Zero plus zero is zero.

”

 

[Victorian Gray]

We are all racist to some extent.

All.

Nope.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Different name, same pompous windbag posts.

How Christian of you.

 

[Victorian Gray]

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.

You've worn out the first one so here's a replacement. You may now start the beating again.

 

[Victorian Gray]

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.

He's not making a legal argument. He's simply tossing this crap out to his adoring disciples.

 

[Subyman]

Then it isn't because of his heritage.

Uhm, he said the the "absolute conflict of interest" comes from his Mexican heritage.

Seriously, please try to think before posting.

 

[Victorian Gray]

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.

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

This one is a work of art.

 

[agent00f]

Interesting, thanks.


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


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".

Generally, someone intelligent & sophisticated would be keen to avoid the appearance of racist bigotry in their arguments, through careful framing and such. Since nobody would accuse Trump of these adjectives, it's left as an exercise for followers to offer sophistry after the fact same as they do for Paula Dean. He's someone the lowest common denominator, who've been ignored all these years by the elitist media, can finally relate to. They are hardly nuanced when it comes to racial relations, and are prone to believe those who look different are "the other", a base human instinct. In sum, they simply don't know any better, but at the same time it's futile to blame such people for what they do.

As another example of this in action, one vector of Trump's birther claims against Obama is the Muslim angle, winking to white+right portions of the country that this infers ineligibility for the office. Add that to the Kenyan claim (you know, real african Black, not just kinda black), and it's pretty clear he's always been playing to a certain ethnic audience with jingoism & racial resentment.

 

[buckshot24]

Uhm, he said the the "absolute conflict of interest" comes from his Mexican heritage.

Seriously, please try to think before posting.

That isn't accurate either.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-keeps-up-attacks-on-judge-gonzalo-curiel-1464911442

 

[Subyman]

That isn't accurate either.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-keeps-up-attacks-on-judge-gonzalo-curiel-1464911442

This is the headline:

Trump Says Judge’s Mexican Heritage Presents ‘Absolute Conflict’

That is exactly what I said and what you disagreed with.

 

[buckshot24]

This is the headline:



That is exactly what I said and what you disagreed with.

Read beyond the headline.

It wasn't the reason he said he had a conflict of interest. He said there was more to it than just his heritage. His heritage should have never been an issue but you're not being accurate by saying that was the only reason he thought he wasn't being fair (not that he couldn't be fair).

 

[ivwshane]

That isn't accurate either.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-keeps-up-attacks-on-judge-gonzalo-curiel-1464911442

Actually it appears he is very accurate, your link even says the same thing. You really are stuck on stupid!

 

[Subyman]

Read beyond the headline.

It wasn't the reason he said he had a conflict of interest. He said there was more to it than just his heritage. His heritage should have never been an issue but you're not being accurate by saying that was the only reason he thought he wasn't being fair (not that he couldn't be fair).

I don't have an account there so it won't let me read the article, post what you think is relevant.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't have an account there so it won't let me read the article, post what you think is relevant.

When without an account you can see in their "preview" the exact things you said were said are in quotes.

 

[buckshot24]

I don't have an account there so it won't let me read the article, post what you think is relevant.

For some reason it let me read it first time without signing in.

"In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association."

This may be as stupid as the claim you think he made but it isn't the same thing.

 

[Subyman]

When without an account you can see in their "preview" the exact things you said were said are in quotes.

Perhaps I have read too many WSJ articles today, I do not have a preview option. I've watched the Tapper interview, read the WSJ article previously, and watched the original speech. I think its pretty obvious what he means haha.