Trump is Right to Question Hispanic Judge

[eohrnberger]

Figured you'd wiggle on that one. lol.

Trumplstitskin's lawyers

DID

NOT

FLE

A

MOTION.

That TELLS you they do not believe the judge shows bias.

They also SAID they do not plan to file a motion.

Play this six ways till Sunday -- you'll lose.

No, it doesn't. All it does is show that the lawyers haven't filed a motion.

Unless of course there's something more to what "They SAID" that you've not yet shared.

If "They SAID" that they believe the judge hasn't shown bias, fine. But until they do say that . . . . . it's only guessing on your part, and leads to no conclusions based on proven facts.

(Still looking for any sort of substantiation of what these lawyers have said BTW)

(Vertical spacing doesn't throw me, and it isn't going to change the facts of the matter either)

 

[Indeeependaaant]

I do think the judge is biased but this might get Trump more of a fair trial. The judge now knows he will be under scrutiny since he's against everything Trump stands for. Everyone is watching this, hopefully, the judge remembers he'll have a lot of eyes on this decision.







Hello everyone, I'm new. :2wave:

 

[Paperview]

No, it doesn't. All it does is show that the lawyers haven't filed a motion.

...

They haven't - and they won't file a motion.

Because it's baseless, ****ing stupid, and they would get their asses handed to them on a platter.

And they know it.

You can bet with absolute certainty, Trump's lawyers are saying they wished he'd shut the **** up.

 

[Paperview]

I do think the judge is biased but this might get Trump more of a fair trial. The judge now knows he will be under scrutiny since he's against everything Trump stands for. Everyone is watching this, hopefully, the judge remembers he'll have a lot of eyes on this decision.

How is he biased? Evidence please.

Hello everyone, I'm new. :2wave:

Hi.

 

[eohrnberger]

They haven't - and they won't file a motion.

Because it's baseless, ****ing stupid, and they would get their asses handed to them on a platter.

And they know it.

You can bet with absolute certainty, Trump's lawyers are saying they wished he'd shut the **** up.

They haven't, that appears to be true. This doesn't mean that they won't in the future. It just means that they have not up to this point in time.

That's not a bet I'd be willing to take, as I don't pretend to know what's in another person's mind. Seems that you believe that your are clairvoyant or something. :shrug:

 

[danarhea]

And how many threads are there on this one issue? How many attack Trump threads?

Well, the present Republican Speaker of the House has not posted here, but if I remember correctly, Paul Ryan did state a few days ago that Trump's statement met the definition of racism, and had no place in politics.

 

[Paperview]

They haven't, that appears to be true. This doesn't mean that they won't in the future. It just means that they have not up to this point in time.

That's not a bet I'd be willing to take, as I don't pretend to know what's in another person's mind. Seems that you believe that your are clairvoyant or something. :shrug:

I'm not clairvoyant. I know the law.

There isn't a chance in hell Trump's lawyers will file that motion.

I'm so sure I'm willing to make a sig bet on it - but we know, as you told us -- you're not that confident.

 

[TobyOne]

I don't know who those people are.

And I should listen to you or ExCon or Countryboy...why precisely?

 

[eohrnberger]

I'm not clairvoyant. I know the law.

There isn't a chance in hell Trump's lawyers will file that motion.

I'm so sure I'm willing to make a sig bet on it - but we know, as you told us -- you're not that confident.

I'll admit that it's unlikely, but it's not outside the realm of possibility, however remote. Kinda, 'never say never'.

 

[upsideguy]

Sorry, but that was much too shallow an analysis on your part.
There are a string of connections that follow the LaRaza Lawyers group.
Take the time to check out the string if you care to be informed.
Your call.

Regardless, that doesn't excuse how Trump could have been so stupid as to fall into the trap that allows his political enemies to latch on to the racism hook.
Really dumb.

Moving on to your second comment ... it's unintelligible.
Proper judicial temperament carries a political bias???
No comprendo.

As for Merrick Garland, tell me the truth, you brought Garland up because Liz Warren brought him up in her attack on Mitch McConnell and you read about it in PoliticsUsa 2 hours before you posted your comment.
Right?

OK. Show us the string of connections between the La Raza Lawyers Association and your radical suggestions. Remember, it is you that made the assertion. In a debate, when your assertion is challenged (which I am doing), it is your job to show cause (credible third party evidence of the assertion). If you can not do so, all watching the debate can assume that the assertion is invalid (which most of already know it is -- case in point, I already defended that assertion with credible third party see, see previous posted Red State article). I am assuming that you can not defend this assertion with credible evidence and therefore it is invalid... but have at it.

As to judicial temperament, I do stand corrected. I should have said judicial philosophy. I did get sloppy and think of them as the same thing. They are not. But, my assertion, as corrected, stands. We do pick our SCOTUS justices based on their biases. Its called judicial philosophy.

As to PoliticsUSA.... I have never been to that site. That assertion about Garland was solely mine. Some of us on this site actually can, and do, think for ourselves.

 

[Fletch]

Well, the present Republican Speaker of the House has not posted here, but if I remember correctly, Paul Ryan did state a few days ago that Trump's statement met the definition of racism, and had no place in politics.

Everybody seems to be calling it racism. But then again everything is racism nowadays. It seems to me, what Trump did was more race 'baiting' than racism. And it is hardly the first time that has happened. To a certain extent, this sort of thing is written into our Constitution. Only native born Americans can run for president--the assumption being that foreign born might have their loyalties laying elsewhere. Plus, wasn't one of Trumps criticisms of Cruz was that he was Canadian? Not sure what the difference is--why one is ok and the other somehow racist.

 

[danarhea]

Everybody seems to be calling it racism. But then again everything is racism nowadays. It seems to me, what Trump did was more race 'baiting' than racism. And it is hardly the first time that has happened. To a certain extent, this sort of thing is written into our Constitution. Only native born Americans can run for president--the assumption being that foreign born might have their loyalties laying elsewhere. Plus, wasn't one of Trumps criticisms of Cruz was that he was Canadian? Not sure what the difference is--why one is ok and the other somehow racist.

What in the holy hell does Trump's birther statements against Cruz have to do with Trump saying a judge is biased because he is a Mexican? It doesn't. One has to do with Trump's faulty interpretation of the Constitution, while the other is a blatantly racist statement. The racism in Trump's statement is seen not only by Democrats, but by Republicans too, including Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Reid Ribble, Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, Bob Corker, Marco Rubio, Ben Sasse, Susan Collins................... Shall I go on? The list is very long. FACT: That Trump's statement is racist is seen by members of his own party.

Your dishonesty here is noted.

 

[upsideguy]

Former attorney general: Trump right to question judge’s fairness

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says Donald Trump is right to challenge the fairness a judge overseeing lawsuits against him.

[...]

“These circumstances, while not necessarily conclusive, at least raise a legitimate question to be considered,” said Gonzales, who was attorney general for former President George W. Bush.​

Former attorney general: Trump right to question judge’s fairness | TheHill​

An Alberto Gonzales says its "ok" reference.... too funny!

Interesting that Alberto Gonzales, who has "Attorney General" resume, is not teaching at one of America's top law schools. He is teaching at Belmont University Law, which ranks about 200. Not very impressive. Probably because the legal community is not very impressed with him, so we shouldn't be very impressed by what he has to say about the Trump situation.

 

[shrubnose]

Trump's questions will be answered when the voters send him home in November.

:lol:

 

[Excon]

An Alberto Gonzales says its "ok" reference.... too funny!

Interesting that Alberto Gonzales, who has "Attorney General" resume, is not teaching at one of America's top law schools. He is teaching at Belmont University Law, which ranks about 200. Not very impressive. Probably because the legal community is not very impressed with him, so we shouldn't be very impressed by what he has to say about the Trump situation.

Hilarious.
Nothing you said is even relevant to the accuracy of what he said.

 

[Port & Starboard]

Judge Curiel’s affiliation with the Hispanic National Bar Association.....what could go wrong?

The HBNA's own press release/ad.


The HNBA calls for a boycott of all of Trump business ventures, including golf courses, hotels, and restaurants. We salute NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s for ending their association with Trump, and we join them in standing up against bigotry and racist rhetoric. Other businesses and corporations should follow the lead of NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s and take similar actions against Donald Trump’s business interests. We can and will make a difference.

 

[Excon]

Judge Curiel’s affiliation with the Hispanic National Bar Association.....what could go wrong?

The HBNA's own press release/ad.


The HNBA calls for a boycott of all of Trump business ventures, including golf courses, hotels, and restaurants. We salute NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s for ending their association with Trump, and we join them in standing up against bigotry and racist rhetoric. Other businesses and corporations should follow the lead of NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s and take similar actions against Donald Trump’s business interests. We can and will make a difference.

This information has already been shown, quoted and even linked.
They still refuse to acknowledge the perception of bias is there.

 

[Paperview]

An Alberto Gonzales says its "ok" reference.... too funny!

Interesting that Alberto Gonzales, who has "Attorney General" resume, is not teaching at one of America's top law schools. He is teaching at Belmont University Law, which ranks about 200. Not very impressive. Probably because the legal community is not very impressed with him, so we shouldn't be very impressed by what he has to say about the Trump situation.

Even the Bush failed former AG is walking it back some as as well..

Alberto Gonzalez Now Backing Off Support of Trump's Judge Attack


"Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, who might have been the only legal mind to publicly support Donald Trump’s concerns about a federal judge, seems to be backing off just a bit. Federal judge Gonzalo Curiel is presiding over the fraud lawsuit involving Trump University. Trump has repeatedly called the judge a ‘hater’ and raised questions as to whether he can be impartial given his ‘Mexican’ heritage.

...On Monday, during an appearance on Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield, Gonzalez had some much harsher words for Donald Trump.
“The fact that Donald Trump has attacked a Hispanic judge makes me angry. I’ve worked very hard with Hispanic organizations to get good quality Hispanics on our courts so it makes me angry some of these comments which I think are wrong and inappropriate,” Gonzalez said."

Alberto Gonzalez Now Backing Off Support of Trump’s Judge Attack | LawNewz

 

[Fletch]

What in the holy hell does Trump's birther statements against Cruz have to do with Trump saying a judge is biased because he is a Mexican? It doesn't. One has to do with Trump's faulty interpretation of the Constitution, while the other is a blatantly racist statement. The racism in Trump's statement is seen not only by Democrats, but by Republicans too, including Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Reid Ribble, Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, Bob Corker, Marco Rubio, Ben Sasse, Susan Collins................... Shall I go on? The list is very long. FACT: That Trump's statement is racist is seen by members of his own party.

Your dishonesty here is noted.

What dishonesty did you note? And you listing people who agree with you does not add weight to your position, particularly since in my opening sentence I pointed out that 'everybody seems to be calling it racism.' And what Trump did is nothing new. Liberals embrace it all the time. Its called identity politics.

 

[Excon]

Even the Bush failed former AG is walking it back some as as well..

Alberto Gonzalez Now Backing Off Support of Trump's Judge Attack


"Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, who might have been the only legal mind to publicly support Donald Trump’s concerns about a federal judge, seems to be backing off just a bit. Federal judge Gonzalo Curiel is presiding over the fraud lawsuit involving Trump University. Trump has repeatedly called the judge a ‘hater’ and raised questions as to whether he can be impartial given his ‘Mexican’ heritage.

...On Monday, during an appearance on Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield, Gonzalez had some much harsher words for Donald Trump.
“The fact that Donald Trump has attacked a Hispanic judge makes me angry. I’ve worked very hard with Hispanic organizations to get good quality Hispanics on our courts so it makes me angry some of these comments which I think are wrong and inappropriate,” Gonzalez said."

Alberto Gonzalez Now Backing Off Support of Trump’s Judge Attack | LawNewz[/url]

Clarification is not walking it back.
Gonzales is of the same opinion that it is right to question when the appearance is there.

Here is the full interview where you can hear the other portions you didn't include.

​

Though he does not like the way Trump went about it, I am sure if he sat down with him and asked what he meant he would see that Trump was not questioning on his ethnicity alone.

Which really is a stupid position for anyone to take since it was based on the Judges odd decisions.
Which shows ethnicity wasn't the only factor.

Trump did not question solely based on ethnicity.

 

[Indeeependaaant]

How is he biased? Evidence please.


Hi.

Since this is my opinion then I'll let it stand as "I think he is biased." I personally don't see how he can not be, half the world is at this point, bias after all the negative press regarding racism and Trumps supposed hate of Hispanics. The judge in question promotes illegal sympathy, his parents came here from Mexico, and he is sympathetic to those who immigrate illegally, that's common knowledge and he's made that public.

Like I stated, I do think the noise made will lift the veil so that the trial will be fair without removal of this judge. We will have to wait and see to know for sure. It's similar to Judge Michael Mukasey being denied a motion from Omar Abdel Rahman and El Sayyid Nosair, (suspects in a terrorist plot), to recuse himself in regard to his Jewish faith. The courts have discredited the notion of removing a biased judge from cases like this, although it is as obvious as a black man not wanting a judge who has ever been affiliated with any group promoting a white's only agenda. I can understand the thought, but it won't hold water in the legal system. I believe Trump blew the horn so that people will pay attention to the case, I think that's all he can really do at this point.

 

[Indeeependaaant]

Judge Curiel’s affiliation with the Hispanic National Bar Association.....what could go wrong?

The HBNA's own press release/ad.


The HNBA calls for a boycott of all of Trump business ventures, including golf courses, hotels, and restaurants. We salute NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s for ending their association with Trump, and we join them in standing up against bigotry and racist rhetoric. Other businesses and corporations should follow the lead of NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s and take similar actions against Donald Trump’s business interests. We can and will make a difference.

That's the thing, it's obviously bias in my opinion. But, nothing can be done about that legally. So the point is moot.

 

[bubbabgone]

OK. Show us the string of connections between the La Raza Lawyers Association and your radical suggestions. Remember, it is you that made the assertion. In a debate, when your assertion is challenged (which I am doing), it is your job to show cause (credible third party evidence of the assertion). If you can not do so, all watching the debate can assume that the assertion is invalid (which most of already know it is -- case in point, I already defended that assertion with credible third party see, see previous posted Red State article). I am assuming that you can not defend this assertion with credible evidence and therefore it is invalid... but have at it.

As to judicial temperament, I do stand corrected. I should have said judicial philosophy. I did get sloppy and think of them as the same thing. They are not. But, my assertion, as corrected, stands. We do pick our SCOTUS justices based on their biases. Its called judicial philosophy.

As to PoliticsUSA.... I have never been to that site. That assertion about Garland was solely mine. Some of us on this site actually can, and do, think for ourselves.

1) I gave the link to a site that made the claims and they were pretty clear and they seemed to be checkable if anyone was so inclined.
2) yes, we do select Justices based on their judicial philosophy. And I suggest "The Constitution is a Living Document", meaning it means whatever the hell you want it to mean, is a crappy judicial philosophy.
3) you hadn't heard or read about Liz Warren making that very point about Garland earlier?

 

[upsideguy]

1) I gave the link to a site that made the claims and they were pretty clear and they seemed to be checkable if anyone was so inclined.
2) yes, we do select Justices based on their judicial philosophy. And I suggest "The Constitution is a Living Document", meaning it means whatever the hell you want it to mean, is a crappy judicial philosophy.
3) you hadn't heard or read about Liz Warren making that very point about Garland earlier?

1) World Nut Job Daily is not a credible source. They run conspiracy theories all of the time; including Obama is Kenyan. I posted a something also derived from a right wing website that is contrary to this garbage. Without a credible source, again by debate theory, we can all assume its not so. So its not.
2) We agree
3) No, I had not.

 

[upsideguy]

The judge belongs to the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association whose website provides links to its affiliates including the national La Raza organization. The judge sat on a board of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association which awarded a scholarship to at least one illegal alien - I thought judges were sworn to uphold our laws and Constitution? Explicitly supporting illegals who break our laws does not fall under that oath, unless you are brain dead.

OK, so by the logic than the GB Bush was indeed responsible for 9/11 because of the family's association with the Bin Laden family. Family links are more telling than a bunch of website links. You are making assertions. Its YOUR job to prove these assertions. Unless, you can show the judge is a member lf La Raza, you have no argument. Transitive logic is not logic. Next.