drk, let's assume for the moment that trump has lots of good reason for wanting to disqualify the judge. do you believe that the fact the judge is of Mexican descent is one of them?Originally Posted by DRK Star
drk, let's assume for the moment that trump has lots of good reason for wanting to disqualify the judge. do you believe that the fact the judge is of Mexican descent is one of them?
dont ask any more. Done commenting on this issue. thanks. I said all I have to say. its getting repetitive
No shit?
Yeah...because that would make sense. Reward a racist for buying your product by giving him a refund.....
So it's ok to take money from racist, just not vote for them for president?
"Druff would suck his own dick if it were long enough"- Brandon "drexel" Drexel
"ann coulter literally has more common sense than pfa."-Sonatine
"Real grinders supports poker fraud"- Ray Davis
"DRILLED HER GOOD"- HONGKONGER
drk, you're seriously missing the point and have no basic understanding of what racism is. if trump believes that the judge is pre-disposed to rule against him because of the judge's mexican descent -- even if that is only one of 1,000,000 reasons why trump wants him disqualified -- it is the *literal* definition of racism. i.e., believing that a person is pre-disposed to acting a certain way because of their race.DRK Star: ONLY when combined with the other issues. As a Mexican, alone, not at all. I thought I stated that already
Mark of the HildaBeast #TrumpTrain
https://twitter.com/twt/status/740014872650522624
I am going to go on the record and state;
If you vote for trump, you are obv batshit crazy.
If you vote Hilary, just do the world a favor and kill yourself.
rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/Submit
noun
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races
show me specifically where that is taking place
rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/Submit
noun
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races
show me specifically where that is taking place
Step away from the keyboard, and go find a bong.
Last edited by The_Lurker; 06-07-2016 at 05:01 AM.
A jury is NOT a judge.
We pray for understanding as we all occasionally request back door action by accident, when we tried to call an electrician. It happens, it simply happens.
Morning Joe has turned aggressively anti trump. All sounding like Carl Rove. Lol
I guess they figured out he is going to win.
Complaining about trump being a racist when they said nothing about Obama, s UN constitutional 7 years if doing shit..
Nothing about the IRS putting the choke hold on 128 conservative groups to only 3 progressive
Ect ect ect..
Seems they got the orders from the Borg Queen or hive mind.
The same kinda order that forced check unger out from the young Turks , when he had his show.. He was told to stop criticizing Obama, and refused..
Libtards are scary, very scary.
Said to me yesterday on Facebook:
This isn't a discussion or a debate. This man child is a thin skinned buffoon who has no business being anywhere near this office. He's a sexist, misogynistic hate mongerer of the highest order and shame on you for even entertaining the idea of voting for him. Your kids deserve better.
No debate, no more discussion.
I'm out.
people just losing their shit, left and right
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html?_r=0A jury is NOT a judge.
A Judge’s View of Judging Is on the Record
Is this a double or triple whammy?By CHARLIE SAVAGEMAY 14, 2009
WASHINGTON — In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”
In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
Her remarks, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, were not the only instance in which she has publicly described her view of judging in terms that could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing.
This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”
The video was of a panel discussion for law students interested in becoming clerks, and she was explaining the different experiences gained when working at district courts and appeals courts. Her remarks caught the eye of conservative bloggers who accused her of being a “judicial activist,” although Jonathan H. Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University law school, argued that critics were reading far too much into those remarks.
Republicans have signaled that they intend to put the eventual nominee under a microscope, and they say they were put on guard by Mr. Obama’s statement that judges should have “empathy,” a word they suggest could be code for injecting liberal ideology into the law.
Judge Sotomayor has given several speeches about the importance of diversity. But her 2001 remarks at Berkeley, which were published by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, went further, asserting that judges’ identities will affect legal outcomes.
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
Her remarks came in the context of reflecting her own life experiences as a Hispanic female judge and on how the increasing diversity on the federal bench “will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.”
In making her argument, Judge Sotomayor sounded many cautionary notes. She said there was no uniform perspective that all women or members of a minority group have, and emphasized that she was not talking about any individual case.
She also noted that the Supreme Court was uniformly white and male when it delivered historic rulings against racial and sexual discrimination. And she said she tried to question her own “opinions, sympathies and prejudices,” and aspired to impartiality.
Still, Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.” She added, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”
She also approvingly quoted several law professors who said that “to judge is an exercise of power” and that “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives.”
“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,” she said.
Charles J. Ogletree Jr., a Harvard law professor and an adviser to Mr. Obama, said Judge Sotomayor’s remarks were appropriate. Professor Ogletree said it was “obvious that people’s life experiences will inform their judgments in life as lawyers and judges” because law is more than “a technical exercise,” citing Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s famous aphorism: “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.”
In a forward to a 2007 book, “The International Judge” (U.P.N.E.), Judge Sotomayor seemed to put a greater emphasis on a need for judges to seek to transcend their identities, writing that “all judges have cases that touch our passions deeply, but we all struggle constantly with remaining impartial” and letting reason rule. Courts, she added, “are in large part the product of their membership and their judges’ ability to think through and across their own intellectual and professional backgrounds” to find common ground.
I can find articles to the contrary as well...
"But legal experts say that Petrocelli would have little to no chance of prevailing in a legal motion to recuse Curiel because of perceived bias due to his ethnic background — a major reason he has pointedly failed to file such a motion. “It would have zero legal merit,” said Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor who specializes in legal ethics. “A judge’s ethnicity, gender and race is never a grounds for recusal. It’s quite clear. A lawyer would not make that motion without fear of being sanctioned
In fact, Gillers said, there is even legal precedent for sanctioning lawyers who make such motions: In 1998, lawyers in a civil case moved to disqualify federal Judge Denny Chin, who is Asian-American, because some of the parties in the case were also Asian-Americans. Not only was the motion rejected, one of the lawyers was later sanctioned by Judge Chin — a decision that was later upheld by a U.S. appeals court.
There is an even more recent precedent against such recusals in the same judicial circuit where the Trump University case is being tried. One of the parties seeking to overturn a ruling by then U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker in favor of same-sex marriage on the grounds that Walker was gay. In a unanimous ruling in 2012, a U.S Court of Appeals panel rejected the idea that Judge Walker’s sexual preference compromised his impartiality. “To hold otherwise would demonstrate a lack of respect for the integrity of our federal courts,” the judges concluded
We pray for understanding as we all occasionally request back door action by accident, when we tried to call an electrician. It happens, it simply happens.
Said to me yesterday on Facebook:
This isn't a discussion or a debate. This man child is a thin skinned buffoon who has no business being anywhere near this office. He's a sexist, misogynistic hate mongerer of the highest order and shame on you for even entertaining the idea of voting for him. Your kids deserve better.
No debate, no more discussion.
I'm out.
people just losing their shit, left and right
Oh the irony. You don't get to throw the "losing their shit" rock for the rest of your life.
Judge's must avoid even the appearance of impropriety, and may recuse themselves on their own motion. A party may also file such a motion, but this is almost always done at the very beginning of the case, not after you keep getting your ass kicked during the course of the litigation.
Have you noticed that none of Trump's attorneys have gone on record supporting him? That is because Trump's comments are completely unfounded and downright embarrassing.
Race aside, say you were the Defendant in this Trump case and the judge does this to you. How great and fair do you feel about that call against you?
The judge does what to you?
Race aside, say you were the Defendant in this Trump case and the judge does this to you. How great and fair do you feel about that call against you?
We pray for understanding as we all occasionally request back door action by accident, when we tried to call an electrician. It happens, it simply happens.
I'm not playing stupid, I literally have no idea what you mean by "does this to you"
We pray for understanding as we all occasionally request back door action by accident, when we tried to call an electrician. It happens, it simply happens.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
