- Joined
- Jun 4, 2015
- Messages
- 5,849
- Reaction score
- 2,426
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
This message comes to us courtesy that bastion of Trump worship known as Breitbart. Breitbart, which has proven its love for Trump on so many occassions from questioning the story of its own reporter to backstabbing former employees. Breitbart, which has taken upon itself to help "explain" the alt-right movement, and thereby prompting the Southern Poverty Law Center to ask whether Breitbart is becoming the media arm of the alt-right movement.
So the basic gist of their argument is that questioning the bias of a judge is a time honored tradition and necessary to the fair functioning of the US Justice System. This ignores the fact that such a tactic is supposed to take place through a motion filed by the attorneys involved in the case - not by a party in front of the media. They also note that the Judge is part of a Hispanic Group of Attorneys and Judges located in the local area and that this group's name includes "La Raza" or "the race." Of course they forget to explain that this group is not associated in any form or fashion with the national La Raza group nor do they explain (beyond a few "isn't it reasonable" types of questions) how being apart of a group that attempts to further the interests of a demographic group means that this specific individual will be biased against Trump.
Breitbart even tries to allege the following, "Judge Curiel’s integrity is not being questioned by Trump just because of his Hispanic heritage. Trump is merely asserting that a person’s heritage does not foreclose a proper inquiry into their political activism and potential biases."
Seriously? That's an interesting way of interpreting the fact that Trump explicitly brought up the Judge's hispanic lineage, on his own, while simultaneously claiming that meant the judge suffered from an "absolute conflict of interest" because Trump wants to build a wall.
At this point, should Breitbart just re-name themselves into Trump.com? Or perhaps Alt-right.com?
Why even pretend to be a journalistic source for news.
So the basic gist of their argument is that questioning the bias of a judge is a time honored tradition and necessary to the fair functioning of the US Justice System. This ignores the fact that such a tactic is supposed to take place through a motion filed by the attorneys involved in the case - not by a party in front of the media. They also note that the Judge is part of a Hispanic Group of Attorneys and Judges located in the local area and that this group's name includes "La Raza" or "the race." Of course they forget to explain that this group is not associated in any form or fashion with the national La Raza group nor do they explain (beyond a few "isn't it reasonable" types of questions) how being apart of a group that attempts to further the interests of a demographic group means that this specific individual will be biased against Trump.
Breitbart even tries to allege the following, "Judge Curiel’s integrity is not being questioned by Trump just because of his Hispanic heritage. Trump is merely asserting that a person’s heritage does not foreclose a proper inquiry into their political activism and potential biases."
Seriously? That's an interesting way of interpreting the fact that Trump explicitly brought up the Judge's hispanic lineage, on his own, while simultaneously claiming that meant the judge suffered from an "absolute conflict of interest" because Trump wants to build a wall.
At this point, should Breitbart just re-name themselves into Trump.com? Or perhaps Alt-right.com?
Why even pretend to be a journalistic source for news.