One of those situations in my mind that you keep your mouth shut and if there are any grounds for appeal, they'll come out in the course of the trial.
La Raza...good to be associated with them or not?
- Thread starter rog1187
- Start date
Exactly.
On the other hand though, maybe Trump feels by putting this out there now any decision made by this judge could be viewed under suspicion and the judge may then be more tempered as to avoid that suspicion.
I think he is trying to make this into a circus and delay it. Kind of like another candidate I know.
Just for argument's sake. Is there a circumstance where a white person can call into question the motivations and bias of a minority without it being labeled as racism?Racism as a legal strategy!
I've yet to see a case on this board discussed where the circumstance has been given any merit even with the rigorous standards you propose
Ok. I don't have much memory as I probably wasn't involved. My comment was theoretical from my pov and not necessarily this board.
If all you need to do to get a case reassigned is to say something that could possibly be construed as insulting to the judge, we are setting a bad precedent.Racism as a legal strategy!
None - if that judge is not prejudiced toward that lineage. The judge should have no appearance of a bias. Are you stating that this judge has no history of support?
Again I ask if you would have objected to Benjamin serving as judge in Blankenship case. He had no history(yet) of a bias toward Blankenship even though there was great finance support to aid Benjamin's election.
How are you attempting to connect the Mexican drug cartel with all Mexicans crossing the border as illegals. You could make the same connection of 12 million illegals as supporters of Mexican drug cartels. If that connection can be made, every damned illegal must be removed from US soil, IMO.
That would have certainly been the prudent path. I do believe that had already crossed their legal minds and would expect them to act on it prior to trial.
Just for the hell of it, did you feel that way when Bobby Kennedy retried the KKK members who were tried for murder and found innocent by all white jury and judge? Judge had no KKK affiliation but damned surely did have a bias for white v. black???Racism as a legal strategy!
I honestly can't decipher that post. Can you post me a link and I'll try to answer.
You still have not shown what part or parts of the story are not correct. I did read your two links and nothing changed any part of WND's story.
All the facts I posted are true. None of them were opinion like the info you linked.
You want a link to help you decipher what? Bobby Kennedy was a young prick acting as AG? Judgements of innocent were overturned by the young prick? People who were found to be innocent of murder were retried in Fed Court and found guilty in double jeopardy named Civil Rights.
The Benjamin situation is entirely different. Blankenship gave a ton of money to help put him in office. He did that knowing his case was going before the court he wanted him to be on. Benjamin had a distinct conflict of interest. It's a problem with an elected judiciary.
With respect to the judge hearing the case vs Trump University, the guy was born to people who immigrated to this country. That does not give him implicit bias. If it were the same situation but the judge's parents were Indian, would this be a question. Also, how does the nationality of someone's parents have anything to do with the lawsuit in question.
You insist on making the case about racism. Is that easier for you? That is supposed to end all discussion on this board. The first to claim racism wins the discussion. I have called that theory as BS for months and years. The argument is there are other grounds on which to ask for the recusal of the judge beside his lineage. Clearly the judges prior comments and associations are sufficient grounds. He helped finance an illegal into law school. That is a definite conflict with Trump who desires building a wall and remove the 12 million illegals.
Surely you can see that conflict. And neither you nor Hillary can prove that The Donald is racist. That is the fact regarding this sham in its entirety. And, there has been no proof that Benjamin would not take the Blankenship case and be totally non-biased.
I'm not making it about racism. This is the first time I've used that word in this thread. Is the only fair judge someone who agrees with Trump's political views? That's not supposed to enter into it, and I guarantee that this and many more judges have presided over cases where their personal political views were in conflict with one or both parties before them. How you go about showing that this judge has a bias is to show how he has applied it in past cases. It's possible that he has done that, but Trump hasn't presented any evidence to show it, and his attorneys haven't filed any motions that lead me to believe they have evidence of it.
If you are not making it about racism, we are probably in agreement. The judge should be without judgement about anything prior to the case being presented. Sorta like it is for jurors. No appearance of conflict. In this case, Trump is open about his opinion regarding illegal aliens. Judge appears to have opposite position on the illegal aliens and his prior activities and association would suggest he is potentially is sympathetic to illegals.
Then he's shown that bias in the past? Also, this case has nothing to do with immigration, legal or otherwise.
Ok, so what Trump has said doesn't make sense as a legal case. Ya'll thinking way too short with him again. He doesn't care about the lawsuit, it's chump change to him. Publicity publicity publicity, and what he says is always aimed at the populist minded people in both parties, and why Roseann switched. This isn't a party election. This is ruling elite vs. the little people fight, in Trump's mind, and his supporters minds. Ya'll keep playing the D's vs. R's, and you'll never understand this election.
If he keeps upsetting large and growing parts of the population, he's in trouble. He doesn't stand a chance. I'm not saying that as a D or an R. I'm saying that as a realist.
Yea, this might be the largest margin of victory by a candidate in a long time. Good news is that the Libertarian party might get a lot of votes and become more known to Joe moron.