Paul Ryan Admits the Ugly Truth!
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.
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.
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:
Source: http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/127/2/1017
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:
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
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):
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
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
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:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ce/485732/
And another one (my emphasis added):
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*...
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.
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.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Putin Admits He Invaded Ukraine "to impress Jodie Foster" |
02 Apr 2024, 2:48 pm |
Am I too ugly to date? |
27 Feb 2024, 11:19 am |
Truth social going public and merging |
22 Mar 2024, 2:47 pm |
Truth Social loses $4 billion in value in one week |
06 Apr 2024, 3:35 am |