In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote: Bad La Raza! Bad! Again!
MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler +
Trump's argument is not concerned with La Raza (even if his surrogates or spokeswoman brought up La Raza after the fact - "only Trump speaks for Trump", as he says). His argument is very simple, the judge is Mexican and therefore biased against Trump. Which I guess is an admission that Mexican voters will be, too.
On the plus side, if it weren't for Testie this thread would probably have about 1,000 less pages. It's all about that mischievous fun though .
I too think it's pretty simple, but not even close to your take. The judge belongs to group called the Hispanic National Bar Association that called for a national boycott of Trump's various enterprises in 2015. Trump didn't feel he could get a fair shake from this judge, and he said so.
If this is so clear, why have Trumps laywers not asked for a different judge? Would be a slam dunk.
Because the showing required to disqualify a judge is really high.
On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote: Bad La Raza! Bad! Again!
MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler +
Trump's argument is not concerned with La Raza (even if his surrogates or spokeswoman brought up La Raza after the fact - "only Trump speaks for Trump", as he says). His argument is very simple, the judge is Mexican and therefore biased against Trump. Which I guess is an admission that Mexican voters will be, too.
On the plus side, if it weren't for Testie this thread would probably have about 1,000 less pages. It's all about that mischievous fun though .
I too think it's pretty simple, but not even close to your take. The judge belongs to group called the Hispanic National Bar Association that called for a national boycott of Trump's various enterprises in 2015. Trump didn't feel he could get a fair shake from this judge, and he said so.
Trump's own stated reasoning does not involve any groups the judge belongs to. His stated reasoning is actually that the judge is Mexican, and therefore biased due to Trump's wall plan. That's it, it's straight from Trump's mouth.
On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote: Bad La Raza! Bad! Again!
MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler +
Trump's argument is not concerned with La Raza (even if his surrogates or spokeswoman brought up La Raza after the fact - "only Trump speaks for Trump", as he says). His argument is very simple, the judge is Mexican and therefore biased against Trump. Which I guess is an admission that Mexican voters will be, too.
On the plus side, if it weren't for Testie this thread would probably have about 1,000 less pages. It's all about that mischievous fun though .
I too think it's pretty simple, but not even close to your take. The judge belongs to group called the Hispanic National Bar Association that called for a national boycott of Trump's various enterprises in 2015. Trump didn't feel he could get a fair shake from this judge, and he said so.
Trump's own stated reasoning does not involve any groups the judge belongs to. His stated reasoning is actually that the judge is Mexican, and therefore biased due to Trump's wall plan. That's it, it's straight from Trump's mouth.
I think the statement you're referring to is Trump's abbreviated reasoning, or a paraphrase of a more complex thought. This judge has associations that make his impartiality doubtful, and I think it's pretty disingenuous to say Trump wants the judge to recuse himself because he's Mexican. Maybe it was unfortunate phrasing; maybe it's a cherry-picked item from a long interview. I'm comfortable saying I know what Trump meant.
On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote: Bad La Raza! Bad! Again!
MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler +
Trump's argument is not concerned with La Raza (even if his surrogates or spokeswoman brought up La Raza after the fact - "only Trump speaks for Trump", as he says). His argument is very simple, the judge is Mexican and therefore biased against Trump. Which I guess is an admission that Mexican voters will be, too.
On the plus side, if it weren't for Testie this thread would probably have about 1,000 less pages. It's all about that mischievous fun though .
I too think it's pretty simple, but not even close to your take. The judge belongs to group called the Hispanic National Bar Association that called for a national boycott of Trump's various enterprises in 2015. Trump didn't feel he could get a fair shake from this judge, and he said so.
If this is so clear, why have Trumps laywers not asked for a different judge? Would be a slam dunk.
Because the showing required to disqualify a judge is really high.
how high/low would you like it to be? is curiel qualified to lead a fair trial in the case on the trump university, in your mind?
and on a meta level, do you consider the existence of racially organized associations striving for equality by promoting themselfs, as a problem in america?
On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote: Bad La Raza! Bad! Again!
MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler +
Trump's argument is not concerned with La Raza (even if his surrogates or spokeswoman brought up La Raza after the fact - "only Trump speaks for Trump", as he says). His argument is very simple, the judge is Mexican and therefore biased against Trump. Which I guess is an admission that Mexican voters will be, too.
On the plus side, if it weren't for Testie this thread would probably have about 1,000 less pages. It's all about that mischievous fun though .
I too think it's pretty simple, but not even close to your take. The judge belongs to group called the Hispanic National Bar Association that called for a national boycott of Trump's various enterprises in 2015. Trump didn't feel he could get a fair shake from this judge, and he said so.
Trump's own stated reasoning does not involve any groups the judge belongs to. His stated reasoning is actually that the judge is Mexican, and therefore biased due to Trump's wall plan. That's it, it's straight from Trump's mouth.
This judge has associations that make his impartiality doubtful,
No, he doesn't.
On June 08 2016 06:24 josephmcjoe wrote: and I think it's pretty disingenuous to say Trump wants the judge to recuse himself because he's Mexican.
No, it's not disingenuous in the slightest because that is exactly what Trump said and meant. He said that because the judge was "Mexican" (which he isn't), he wouldn't be impartial because of Trump's position on the border wall. That was his reasoning.
On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote: Bad La Raza! Bad! Again!
MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler +
Trump's argument is not concerned with La Raza (even if his surrogates or spokeswoman brought up La Raza after the fact - "only Trump speaks for Trump", as he says). His argument is very simple, the judge is Mexican and therefore biased against Trump. Which I guess is an admission that Mexican voters will be, too.
On the plus side, if it weren't for Testie this thread would probably have about 1,000 less pages. It's all about that mischievous fun though .
I too think it's pretty simple, but not even close to your take. The judge belongs to group called the Hispanic National Bar Association that called for a national boycott of Trump's various enterprises in 2015. Trump didn't feel he could get a fair shake from this judge, and he said so.
Trump's own stated reasoning does not involve any groups the judge belongs to. His stated reasoning is actually that the judge is Mexican, and therefore biased due to Trump's wall plan. That's it, it's straight from Trump's mouth.
Watch that video starting at 5:08. Also starting at 6:40 LOL. Why is he talking about ethnicity? Why not just mention the groups? Trump's first and main argument is that because of the judge's ethnicity, he's biased due to Trump's wall plan. And that argument is part of the video you posted.
4:43 - 5:08 in this one
It's explicit and complete - because of the ethnicity and my wall plan, there's bias.
On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote: Bad La Raza! Bad! Again!
MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler +
Trump's argument is not concerned with La Raza (even if his surrogates or spokeswoman brought up La Raza after the fact - "only Trump speaks for Trump", as he says). His argument is very simple, the judge is Mexican and therefore biased against Trump. Which I guess is an admission that Mexican voters will be, too.
On the plus side, if it weren't for Testie this thread would probably have about 1,000 less pages. It's all about that mischievous fun though .
I too think it's pretty simple, but not even close to your take. The judge belongs to group called the Hispanic National Bar Association that called for a national boycott of Trump's various enterprises in 2015. Trump didn't feel he could get a fair shake from this judge, and he said so.
If this is so clear, why have Trumps laywers not asked for a different judge? Would be a slam dunk.
Because the showing required to disqualify a judge is really high.
I saw the video of Trump trying to explain why the judge was biased. The interviewer asked him directly why the judge would be biased to which Trump replied "I'm building a wall. I'm building a wall.". Is it possible that the case to dismiss just isn't that strong and that it's mainly pitched at the Trump supporters? I mean you could be right, it could be a very high bar to meet but that doesn't mean the evidence would meet a lower bar.
There was a case in our state where a Judge said on the record “I don’t do the bidding of banks, the burden of proof is higher for them.” A couple banks found out about the statement and tried to force him to recuse himself because they didn’t feel they would get a fair trial. It was denied and the appeals court also denied it.
My firm didn’t go down that road, but some firms did and it went poorly for their clients. Even when a judge says they don’t like your client, that does not mean it will be reflected in their ruling. And in Trump’s case, they don’t even have a smoking gun quote.
Generally speaking, obtaining non-sua sponte recusal is very difficult to do. Also, the case for recusal relative to Judge Curiel is terrible and clearly not meritorious enough to warrant a filing on the part of Trump's lawyers. Both are true
On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote: Bad La Raza! Bad! Again!
MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler +
Trump's argument is not concerned with La Raza (even if his surrogates or spokeswoman brought up La Raza after the fact - "only Trump speaks for Trump", as he says). His argument is very simple, the judge is Mexican and therefore biased against Trump. Which I guess is an admission that Mexican voters will be, too.
On the plus side, if it weren't for Testie this thread would probably have about 1,000 less pages. It's all about that mischievous fun though .
I too think it's pretty simple, but not even close to your take. The judge belongs to group called the Hispanic National Bar Association that called for a national boycott of Trump's various enterprises in 2015. Trump didn't feel he could get a fair shake from this judge, and he said so.
Trump's own stated reasoning does not involve any groups the judge belongs to. His stated reasoning is actually that the judge is Mexican, and therefore biased due to Trump's wall plan. That's it, it's straight from Trump's mouth.
This judge has associations that make his impartiality doubtful,
On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote: Bad La Raza! Bad! Again!
MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler +
Trump's argument is not concerned with La Raza (even if his surrogates or spokeswoman brought up La Raza after the fact - "only Trump speaks for Trump", as he says). His argument is very simple, the judge is Mexican and therefore biased against Trump. Which I guess is an admission that Mexican voters will be, too.
On the plus side, if it weren't for Testie this thread would probably have about 1,000 less pages. It's all about that mischievous fun though .
I too think it's pretty simple, but not even close to your take. The judge belongs to group called the Hispanic National Bar Association that called for a national boycott of Trump's various enterprises in 2015. Trump didn't feel he could get a fair shake from this judge, and he said so.
If this is so clear, why have Trumps laywers not asked for a different judge? Would be a slam dunk.
Because the showing required to disqualify a judge is really high.
how high/low would you like it to be? is curiel qualified to lead a fair trial in the case on the trump university, in your mind?
and on a meta level, do you consider the existence of racially organized associations striving for equality by promoting themselfs, as a problem in america?
The standard is fine. It should be tough to disqualify judges. Making too easy would wreck the judiciary, which is already under serious strain.
That said, just because judges don't have biases or prejudices sufficient to warrant disqualification does not mean that they do not have biases and prejudices that materially affect the outcomes of cases. Any attorney who has ever litigated a case knows otherwise. Though I haven't looked at the merits of the Trump U case and why Judge Curiel released the records, I fully expect that he is predisposed to being adverse to Trump. To think otherwise is incredibly naive.
On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote: Bad La Raza! Bad! Again!
MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler +
Trump's argument is not concerned with La Raza (even if his surrogates or spokeswoman brought up La Raza after the fact - "only Trump speaks for Trump", as he says). His argument is very simple, the judge is Mexican and therefore biased against Trump. Which I guess is an admission that Mexican voters will be, too.
On the plus side, if it weren't for Testie this thread would probably have about 1,000 less pages. It's all about that mischievous fun though .
I too think it's pretty simple, but not even close to your take. The judge belongs to group called the Hispanic National Bar Association that called for a national boycott of Trump's various enterprises in 2015. Trump didn't feel he could get a fair shake from this judge, and he said so.
If this is so clear, why have Trumps laywers not asked for a different judge? Would be a slam dunk.
Because the showing required to disqualify a judge is really high.
how high/low would you like it to be? is curiel qualified to lead a fair trial in the case on the trump university, in your mind?
and on a meta level, do you consider the existence of racially organized associations striving for equality by promoting themselfs, as a problem in america?
I fully expect that he is predisposed to being adverse to Trump. To think otherwise is incredibly naive.
Based on what fact(s)? (other than assuming he is an intelligent person)
On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote: Bad La Raza! Bad! Again!
MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler +
Trump's argument is not concerned with La Raza (even if his surrogates or spokeswoman brought up La Raza after the fact - "only Trump speaks for Trump", as he says). His argument is very simple, the judge is Mexican and therefore biased against Trump. Which I guess is an admission that Mexican voters will be, too.
On the plus side, if it weren't for Testie this thread would probably have about 1,000 less pages. It's all about that mischievous fun though .
I too think it's pretty simple, but not even close to your take. The judge belongs to group called the Hispanic National Bar Association that called for a national boycott of Trump's various enterprises in 2015. Trump didn't feel he could get a fair shake from this judge, and he said so.
If this is so clear, why have Trumps laywers not asked for a different judge? Would be a slam dunk.
Because the showing required to disqualify a judge is really high.
how high/low would you like it to be? is curiel qualified to lead a fair trial in the case on the trump university, in your mind?
and on a meta level, do you consider the existence of racially organized associations striving for equality by promoting themselfs, as a problem in america?
The standard is fine. It should be tough to disqualify judges. Making too easy would wreck the judiciary, which is already under serious strain.
That said, just because judges don't have biases or prejudices sufficient to warrant disqualification does not mean that they do not have biases and prejudices that materially affect the outcomes of cases. Any attorney who has ever litigated a case knows otherwise. Though I haven't looked at the merits of the Trump U case and why Judge Curiel released the records, I fully expect that he is predisposed to being adverse to Trump. To think otherwise is incredibly naive.
Setting aside the group associations, do you think he's adverse on the basis of ethnicity? Are Mexicans biased against Trump due to his wall plan?
On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote: Bad La Raza! Bad! Again!
MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler +
Trump's argument is not concerned with La Raza (even if his surrogates or spokeswoman brought up La Raza after the fact - "only Trump speaks for Trump", as he says). His argument is very simple, the judge is Mexican and therefore biased against Trump. Which I guess is an admission that Mexican voters will be, too.
On the plus side, if it weren't for Testie this thread would probably have about 1,000 less pages. It's all about that mischievous fun though .
I too think it's pretty simple, but not even close to your take. The judge belongs to group called the Hispanic National Bar Association that called for a national boycott of Trump's various enterprises in 2015. Trump didn't feel he could get a fair shake from this judge, and he said so.
If this is so clear, why have Trumps laywers not asked for a different judge? Would be a slam dunk.
Because the showing required to disqualify a judge is really high.
how high/low would you like it to be? is curiel qualified to lead a fair trial in the case on the trump university, in your mind?
and on a meta level, do you consider the existence of racially organized associations striving for equality by promoting themselfs, as a problem in america?
I fully expect that he is predisposed to being adverse to Trump. To think otherwise is incredibly naive.
Based on what fact(s)?
Most Judges have opinions before the case starts. They are not blank slates. XDaunt that almost every judge has some opinion on a case before the arguments are even made. With a national figure like Trump, this only increases the chances of the judge being hard on Trumps attorneys.
Though this will likely only manifest in how the attorneys are treated in court or how flexible the judge is with deadlines. When the final ruling comes out, it will be based on the fact of the case and law.
It’s the same with our clients. Pro se defendants can file anything at any time and the judge will always give them the benefit of the doubt. Same with legal aid and non-profit attorneys. We have to file things timely or get slapped.
On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote: Bad La Raza! Bad! Again!
MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler +
Trump's argument is not concerned with La Raza (even if his surrogates or spokeswoman brought up La Raza after the fact - "only Trump speaks for Trump", as he says). His argument is very simple, the judge is Mexican and therefore biased against Trump. Which I guess is an admission that Mexican voters will be, too.
On the plus side, if it weren't for Testie this thread would probably have about 1,000 less pages. It's all about that mischievous fun though .
I too think it's pretty simple, but not even close to your take. The judge belongs to group called the Hispanic National Bar Association that called for a national boycott of Trump's various enterprises in 2015. Trump didn't feel he could get a fair shake from this judge, and he said so.
Trump's own stated reasoning does not involve any groups the judge belongs to. His stated reasoning is actually that the judge is Mexican, and therefore biased due to Trump's wall plan. That's it, it's straight from Trump's mouth.
Watch that video starting at 5:08. Also starting at 6:45 LOL. Why is he talking about ethnicity? Why not just mention the groups? Trump's first and main argument is that because of the judge's ethnicity, he's biased due to Trump's wall plan. And that argument is part of the video you posted.
It's explicit and complete - because of the ethnicity and my wall plan, there's bias.
Look, you said Trump wasn't talking about the groups, that's what I mainly wanted to point out. Why talk about ethnicity? Because that's what the groups are based around. To use an accessible example, the KKK is pretty clear what race they're about. Being white seems to factor into it.
What he's saying goes like this 1) It seems like I'm being untreated unfairly in the case, which suggests bias on the part of the judge, so 2) What would explain that... probably the judge's background, including his connections and how he feels about Trump's politics. The argument is not 1) Look, it's someone with the wrong skin color, so 2) That means he can never be a true American or do his job. The way you can tell is when he's asked about whether a Muslim judge would be biased, he says "it's possible." Right?
I hardly think it's a less than 1 in a million shot that the judge could have some kind of bias. I doubt it meets any legal standard for recusal, and that's completely normal; it's not something I'm worried about (all the "woe is me" rich people still have roofs over their heads). But the hysterical reaction from people like this is so unfathomable is what's most interesting.
On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote: Bad La Raza! Bad! Again!
MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler +
Trump's argument is not concerned with La Raza (even if his surrogates or spokeswoman brought up La Raza after the fact - "only Trump speaks for Trump", as he says). His argument is very simple, the judge is Mexican and therefore biased against Trump. Which I guess is an admission that Mexican voters will be, too.
On the plus side, if it weren't for Testie this thread would probably have about 1,000 less pages. It's all about that mischievous fun though .
I too think it's pretty simple, but not even close to your take. The judge belongs to group called the Hispanic National Bar Association that called for a national boycott of Trump's various enterprises in 2015. Trump didn't feel he could get a fair shake from this judge, and he said so.
If this is so clear, why have Trumps laywers not asked for a different judge? Would be a slam dunk.
Because the showing required to disqualify a judge is really high.
how high/low would you like it to be? is curiel qualified to lead a fair trial in the case on the trump university, in your mind?
and on a meta level, do you consider the existence of racially organized associations striving for equality by promoting themselfs, as a problem in america?
The standard is fine. It should be tough to disqualify judges. Making too easy would wreck the judiciary, which is already under serious strain.
That said, just because judges don't have biases or prejudices sufficient to warrant disqualification does not mean that they do not have biases and prejudices that materially affect the outcomes of cases. Any attorney who has ever litigated a case knows otherwise. Though I haven't looked at the merits of the Trump U case and why Judge Curiel released the records, I fully expect that he is predisposed to being adverse to Trump. To think otherwise is incredibly naive.
Setting aside the group associations, do you think he's adverse on the basis of ethnicity? Are Mexicans biased against Trump due to his wall plan?
I don't know if I'd say that he is biased on the basis of his ethnicity (or that he's biased at all), but the fact that he's of Mexican heritage taken by itself certainly indicates that Judge Curiel is more likely to be biased against Trump. I can say the same thing about his professional affiliations, his profession overall, and the fact that he was appointed by Clinton. Who do you think is more likely to be sympathetic to Trump? Judge Curiel or a white/WASP judge who is a Bush appointee and member of the NRA? As I infamously have remarked, profiling works.
On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote: Bad La Raza! Bad! Again!
MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler +
Trump's argument is not concerned with La Raza (even if his surrogates or spokeswoman brought up La Raza after the fact - "only Trump speaks for Trump", as he says). His argument is very simple, the judge is Mexican and therefore biased against Trump. Which I guess is an admission that Mexican voters will be, too.
On the plus side, if it weren't for Testie this thread would probably have about 1,000 less pages. It's all about that mischievous fun though .
I too think it's pretty simple, but not even close to your take. The judge belongs to group called the Hispanic National Bar Association that called for a national boycott of Trump's various enterprises in 2015. Trump didn't feel he could get a fair shake from this judge, and he said so.
Trump's own stated reasoning does not involve any groups the judge belongs to. His stated reasoning is actually that the judge is Mexican, and therefore biased due to Trump's wall plan. That's it, it's straight from Trump's mouth.
Watch that video starting at 5:08. Also starting at 6:45 LOL. Why is he talking about ethnicity? Why not just mention the groups? Trump's first and main argument is that because of the judge's ethnicity, he's biased due to Trump's wall plan. And that argument is part of the video you posted.
It's explicit and complete - because of the ethnicity and my wall plan, there's bias.
Look, you said Trump wasn't talking about the groups, that's what I mainly wanted to point out. Why talk about ethnicity? Because that's what the groups are based around. To use an accessible example, the KKK is pretty clear what race they're about. Being white seems to factor into it.
What he's saying goes like this 1) It seems like I'm being untreated unfairly in the case, which suggests bias on the part of the judge, so 2) What would explain that... probably the judge's background, including his connections and how he feels about Trump's politics. The argument is not 1) Look, it's someone with the wrong skin color, so 2) That means he can never be a true American or do his job. The way you can tell is when he's asked about whether a Muslim judge would be biased, he says "it's possible." Right?
I hardly think it's a less than 1 in a million shot that the judge could have some kind of bias. I doubt it meets any legal standard for recusal, and that's completely normal; it's not something I'm worried about (all the "woe is me" rich people still have roofs over their heads). But the hysterical reaction from people like this is so unfathomable is what's most interesting.
this is exactly how I interpreted it as well, which is why I didn't think it was racist. If following 1) and 2) makes him racist then fuck it, that word means nothing
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.sli.mg/4lhmM0.jpg)
