• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Law Firm and Judge bringing Trump U case both tied to La Raza...

Its Mickey...he is.

BTW, I was at a NCLR National Council of La Raza convention once, the speakers were George W. Bush and Mitt Romney. They are in no way a radical group.

But..again, the trumpanzies are not right in the head.

Trumpanzies...

Love it.
 
So you have nothing to say about the Trump U case? In a thread on the Trump U case that I have posted about on topic multiple times? And yet you say I am trolling?

so your first post this thread is off limits and now you want it to be about the case only. nice hypocrisy!
 
Not the way I read it! To her ..........diversity on the courts is ****ing Whitey!


Right, because only whitey knows how to be a judge. :roll:
 
Its Mickey...he is.

BTW, I was at a NCLR National Council of La Raza convention once, the speakers were George W. Bush and Mitt Romney. They are in no way a radical group.

But..again, the trumpanzies are not right in the head.

You could post pictures of Romney and Bush at that event. Hell, you could post pictures of Reagan and Hannity and Breitbart hugging the La Raza President and have Ann Coulter talk about what a wonderful group they are, and it wouldn't change a thing. These Trumpettes remind me of the ****ing pod people. The brains are gone. The bodies have been taken over by Trump.
 
What Soto said is typical, what Trump said was taken out of context and Trump is correct!

On the contrary, both of their statements are typical for them, and Trump repeated himself multiple times, for months, before backing down to media pressure yesterday.

So, if a judge is very pro-gun, a member of 20 different gun groups and on the board of directors of some, should he/she be sitting on a case deciding a lawsuit against a firearms manufacture? And said plaintiff objected.......I guess that would be fine.

This Judge is a member of a Bar Association. He's not a member of the National Council of La Raza. FFS, Kimberly Guilfoyle, who is a major Trump Booster on FOX News, is also a member. And Arguing that a Judge's ethnicity[/u] - which is what Trump did - disqualifies them from being able to make unbiased judgment is the textbook definition of racism.

I think you guys are all wet and I stand by what I said. The judge should recuse himself.

You are the one who is all wet, bro.

There is no evidence that Judge Curiel is an Activist Judge, in fact, he seems to be the opposite. This is a guy who has argued - contra President Obama - that Empathy does not have a place in the judicial process, that Judges shouldn't care whether they are coming down in favor of the "big guy" or the "little guy", but rather that they should come down on the side of the law. This is a guy who argues - contra Ruth Bader Ginsburg - that foreign law does not have a role to play in the application of American law, who argued that he was bound to follow precedent even when he personally disagreed with that precedent, and who took on the Cartels as a Bush Administration Federal Prosecutor. The man defended the use of testimony of Mexican Cartel members potentially gained through torture. His counterpart in taking on the cartels had his head crushed by them in an industrial vice, and he kept going after them.

That's why Trump is attacking him. Because he can't be bought, and Trump only knows two ways to deal with people: buy them, or bully them.

Until, of course, he gets steady negative press on it. Then, just like he did with his attacks on Carly Fiorina, and just like he did with his attacks on Heidi Cruz, he backs down. Like he just did yesterday. Because, despite all his posturing, he actually can't take sustained bad press, and will actually bow to political correctness when he gets pressured on it. :)



I don't know why we're bothering. If Trump doesn't lose the case, he'll come out and say that the guy is a great judge, and all the Trumpkins will immediately switch their tune to what-a-great-tactic-that-was-of-course-he-didn't-mean-it. :roll: In the meantime, the man who tried to run on Ted-Cruz's-Father-Helped-Assassinate-JFK has zero credibility with anyone except those desperate to believe.
 
Last edited:
so your first post this thread is off limits and now you want it to be about the case only. nice hypocrisy!

Dude, please stop. This is the about the 5th post where you are trying to incite redress because of one portion of one comment that she made.

If you have a comment about the thread, you should make it.
 
Sure....but if you are Latino, your bias, will reign supreme!

Being Latino has built in bias and I maintain that this guy should not be on this case of Trump's.


Then file the motion in court on behalf of Trump's attorneys so that you can eat the censure punishment instead of them.
 
FLASHBACK: Sotomayor said ethnicity 'will make difference in our judging'...


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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html?_r=0


Extreme Racist Bias .....Defined!

I think this might be why it would be wise to have at least one Textualist on the Supreme Court, maybe 2 would be even better, rather than basing decisions of a "wise Latina woman" on "the richness of her experiences" and considering this as somehow "better" "than a white male".

I'm seeing both racism and sexism in Sotomayor's statement there.

I think Sotomayor was talking about having diversity on the courts and not about judging a particular case.

Could be. But even so, why drag all that into her speech in the first place? Don't most judges, especially Supreme Court judges pride themselves on being, and appearing to be, impartial and unbiased? (Or at least shouldn't they?) I'm not getting that from Sotomayor's statement there.
 
NEW YORK – The federal judge presiding over the Trump University class action lawsuit is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, a group that while not a branch of the National Council of La Raza, has ties to the controversial organization, which translates literally “The Race.”


Judge, law firm bringing Trump U case both tied to La Raza



Yawn. The Trumpets are stirring.

Trump has been under the gun in lawsuits and investigations since 2010. He has already closed one "university" in the face of an investigation by the Attorney General of Texas. He has paid out millions in non suit settlements.

Him pointing to Curiel is a childish attempt to draw attention away from all his legal difficulties.

Trump's lawyers have stated clearly they have no intention of trying to remove the judge, who they have been dealing with for FOUR years.

So this thread? Is a cheap, underhanded **** off way of trying to destroy the reputation of a federal judge without ONE fact of evidence of bias.

I thought Obama supporters were bad. But Trumpets are much, much worse, you have incorporated EVERY one of their tactics to falsify and misrepresent. From this point forward and in the result of this 50 thread propaganda campaign, anything ANY Trumper says should be considered an outright lie until they prove it.

This is the most dishonest political campaign I have ever seen.
 
Dude, please stop. This is the about the 5th post where you are trying to incite redress because of one portion of one comment that she made.

If you have a comment about the thread, you should make it.

responding and asking questions pertaining to their contributions is inciting?

COOKOO COOKOO
 
What Soto said is typical, what Trump said was taken out of context and Trump is correct!
So, if a judge is very pro-gun, a member of 20 different gun groups and on the board of directors of some, should he/she be sitting on a case deciding a lawsuit against a firearms manufacture? And said plaintiff objected.......I guess that would be fine.



OK, you're a racist. I get that.

But what you are trying to say is that a white judge can't sit on a case of a black, or Hispanic, that a black judge can't be impartial with a white defendant, male judges can't be trusted in a case involving women. That's utter ****ing nonsense.

What you're promoting is apartheid, black cops and judges for black folk, white cops and white judges for whites.

And in the fervor of the defense one can only assume that's what Trump wants. Apartheid.
 
Back
Top Bottom