Page 1 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

08 Jun 2016, 9:47 am

Dox47 wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how is Trump calling attention to the ethnicity of the judge different than "found guilty by an all white jury" type statements that typically don't get challenged?


Actually, the burden is on you to determine how they are similar.

The Supreme Court has ruled against prosecutors blocking minority jurors from serving:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-cou ... 1464016709

The prosecutors were the racists in this case. They acted to ensure that no minority juror would serve.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

08 Jun 2016, 9:49 am

Why shouldn't he be on the case? Just because the judge is Hispanic?

That's ridiculous. That means no Hispanic judge could ever be a judge for one of Trump's cases. What's next? Declaring that being Muslim constitutes a conflict of interest? Being black? Being Democrat? Being NeoConservative? Having all his natural hair? Where does it stop?

Now...if he did business with one of Trump's competitors--that's another matter.



Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

08 Jun 2016, 10:18 am

This fraud case has absolutely nothing to do with Mexico or illegal immigration, it's about Trump being a huckster. The idea that this judge has a conflict of interest because he has a Mexican heritage means that anyone who disagrees with him on policy issues, regardless of whether or not they're related to any case being litigated, also has a conflict and therefore must decide themselves. He practically said as much when he was asked a follow up about Muslims.

In his speech he said that the Judge should recuse himself because the judge keeps issuing negative verdicts. So basically Trump is whining that he wants a new judge just because he keeps losing.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

08 Jun 2016, 1:19 pm

beneficii wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how is Trump calling attention to the ethnicity of the judge different than "found guilty by an all white jury" type statements that typically don't get challenged?


Actually, the burden is on you to determine how they are similar.

The Supreme Court has ruled against prosecutors blocking minority jurors from serving:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-cou ... 1464016709

The prosecutors were the racists in this case. They acted to ensure that no minority juror would serve.

Came across that Foster v. Chatman opinion as well, a few days ago... BTW, given that it is a very recent opinion: It wouldn't have made a difference if Scalia had still been on the court, as it was handed down by a decisive 7-1 majority.

Some more food for thought on the same subject:

Anwar, Bayer & Hjalmarsson (2012) wrote:
This article examines the impact of jury racial composition on trial outcomes using a data set of felony trials in Florida between 2000 and 2010. We use a research design that exploits day-to-day variation in the composition of the jury pool to isolate quasi-random variation in the composition of the seated jury, finding evidence that (i) juries formed from all-white jury pools convict black defendants significantly (16 percentage points) more often than white defendants, and (ii) this gap in conviction rates is entirely eliminated when the jury pool includes at least one black member. The impact of jury race is much greater than what a simple correlation of the race of the seated jury and conviction rates would suggest. These findings imply that the application of justice is highly uneven and raise obvious concerns about the fairness of trials in jurisdictions with a small proportion of blacks in the jury pool.


Source: http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/127/2/1017



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

09 Jun 2016, 7:45 pm

Attorneys Larry Klayman and Paul Orfanedes tried something like this in the 90s when they wrote a letter to Denny Chin, a judge trying the case of a plaintiff client they were representing, that because he was an Asian-American and Clinton appointee, and because the attorneys were suing the Clinton Administration and some Asian-Americans over campaign-financing, Chin could not be impartial and must recuse himself.

Chin's response was to boot the 2 attorneys from the case and to tell them they can never appear before him again, they must tell all other judges in the district what they did, and a letter will be sent to all other courts of whom the 2 attorneys are members of the bar detailing what they did.

The 2 attorneys appealed and the appeals court ruled against them, upholding Chin's action against them:

Quote:
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.”


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ce/485732/


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

09 Jun 2016, 7:53 pm

If Trump's argument were upheld, then only Protestant white male judges would be permitted to issue rulings on human rights cases, or indeed rule on any case involving a Protestant white man (from the same article as above):

Quote:
By that standard, white judges will be permitted to keep the latitude they have enjoyed for centuries in discussing matters of intellectual substance, even issues of human rights and, because they are white, still be permitted to later decide specific factual situations involving the principles of human rights which they have discussed previously in a generalized fashion. But for black judges, defendants insist on a far more rigid standard, which would preclude black judges from ever discussing race relations even in the generalized fashion that other justices and judges have discussed issues of human rights. (Leon Higginbotham quoted in article)


Quote:
Constance Baker Motley, the first female African American judge, faced a similar challenge in a 1975 sex-discrimination case. “[I]f background or sex or race of each judge were, by definition, sufficient grounds for removal,” she responded, “no judge on this court could hear this case.” Catholic and Mormon judges have also been challenged; Judge Michael Mukasey, an Orthodox Jew, was asked to step aside from a case against a Muslim defendant in 1994. Citing Higginbotham’s landmark opinion, he said that motion was “the same rancid wine in a different bottle.”


Quote:
Trump wine has always been a little off, and this vintage fairly reeks. At its rawest, the claim amounts to, “Who are you—African American, woman, Jews, ‘Mexican’—to judge a real citizen, a white man?” It’s no different, in essence, from the assertion of one Texas Ku Klux Klansman, being sued for harassing Asian American fishermen, that a female black judge should withdraw because “of the prejudice of ‘your people against the Klansmen.’”


Maybe that's the purpose?


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

11 Jun 2016, 11:24 am

beneficii wrote:
Actually, the burden is on you to determine how they are similar..


You seem to have mistaken my casual question on an internet forum for a formal legal argument in a court of law. Also, that's an isolated demand for rigor.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

11 Jun 2016, 11:57 am

beneficii wrote:
Attorneys Larry Klayman and Paul Orfanedes tried something like this in the 90s when they wrote a letter to Denny Chin, a judge trying the case of a plaintiff client they were representing, that because he was an Asian-American and Clinton appointee, and because the attorneys were suing the Clinton Administration and some Asian-Americans over campaign-financing, Chin could not be impartial and must recuse himself.

Chin's response was to boot the 2 attorneys from the case and to tell them they can never appear before him again, they must tell all other judges in the district what they did, and a letter will be sent to all other courts of whom the 2 attorneys are members of the bar detailing what they did.

The 2 attorneys appealed and the appeals court ruled against them, upholding Chin's action against them:

Quote:
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.”


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ce/485732/

And another one (my emphasis added):

United States v. O Bertoli (1994) wrote:
We are all the more wary of reassigning this case, because the record reflects that Bertoli engaged in a concerted campaign to have Judge Lechner removed from the case. On November 2, 1987, Bertoli wrote a letter to Judge Lechner criticizing the judge's handling of Cannistraro's sentencing in an earlier case. He threatened that "if you do not resign from the bench within thirty days, I will refer this matter to the Judiciary committee and bar association for action." App. at 346. The next day, Bertoli wrote to then-Justice Thurgood Marshall of the United States Supreme Court purporting to make a "formal complaint and request to reprimand and take such other action including impeachment...." App. at 346-47 (quoting letter). Then, Bertoli boasted to others that he was trying to antagonize the judge. See app. at 354-55. Moreover, these actions occurred at a time when "it appear[ed] Bertoli was aware that he was a subject of a grand jury investigation which also concerned Eisenberg." Eisenberg, 734 F.Supp. at 1145. We always should be "keenly aware of the impact [decisions mandating recusal] might have on the conduct of all disputed matters and cases that district court judges try." Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d at 166. This principle is especially important in this case, lest we encourage tactics designed to force recusal.

Source: http://openjurist.org/40/f3d/1384/unite ... -o-bertoli (see section 223)

In other words: Not only is there no reason why judge Gonzalo P. Curiel should recuse himself from the Trump University case... The fact that Trump wants Curiel to recuse himself is in itself a reason for him *not to do so*...



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,873
Location: temperate zone

11 Jun 2016, 12:26 pm

Dox47 wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Actually, the burden is on you to determine how they are similar..


You seem to have mistaken my casual question on an internet forum for a formal legal argument in a court of law. Also, that's an isolated demand for rigor.


Its not the same thing as "an all White jury". Whites in the south had a history of oppressing Blacks in the south just because they are Black.. So an all white jury might be prejudiced against a black defendant just because he is Black.

But Trump isnt claiming that all Hispanic judges are prejudiced against all White Anglo guys just because they are White Anglo guys (this isnt Jim Crow in reverse). He is claiming that all Hispanic judges are biased against one particular White Anglo guy. And the reason for this alledged bigotry that Hispanic judges have against this one Anglo Guy is -that this one Anglo Guy is famous for being hostile to Hispanics!

And this one Anglo guy Trump is talking about is Trump himself.

Trump is saying "I am bigoted against Hispanics. Therefore all Hispanics can be assumed to be bigoted against me in return. So therefore I need special protection against all the bigotry against me caused by my own bigotry".

Its a new and unique kind of logic. :lol:



docfox
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 90
Location: Pennsylvania

11 Jun 2016, 1:05 pm

The judge is literally a card carrying member of La Raza, this literally translates to "The Race" in english. Members have been extreme in the past, promoting the massive influx of mexicans into the southern U.S with the goal of "taking our country back.". Members have also spat out anti-white and anti-black rhetoric.

Even if you don't believe La Raza is radical, which is fine - they're policy openly states La Raza wants "including a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and reduced deportations." - So you have a judge who is OPENLY for these political things, overseeing a case involving a person who is openly AGAINST said political things. How can you imply he won't be bias? This is precisely why judges are NOT supposed to express political allegencies. What people don't seem to understand because the media ignores it is this: People are not upset about him hearing this case because he's Latino. People are upset about him hearing this case because he's a card carrying member of a political organization which has EVERYTHING to gain from Donald Trump loosing. This is the textbook example of 'conflict of interest'

If a white or even black guy who was a member of a organization literally called "The Race" was overseeing a case with connotations like this, the left would be going nuts right now. But it benefits them so let's spin it to another "omg trump's racist!" case instead.

Oh, and Obama actually did this exact thing before - the Obama administration previously blocked a Iranian american judge from hearing Iranian immigration cases


_________________
Diagnosed Asperger's DSM IV ~2003.