Reply to Judge Sotomayor is right: Ethnic heritage can affect judgement

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Judge Sotomayor is right: Ethnic heritage can affect judgement"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Our life experiences, the experiences of those close to us, no matter what race, have an effect on our points of view.  This is no different for a judge, congressman, president or mom down the street, we are all human.  The assumption is that people like judges can put their perceptions aside, but it gets blurry when those life experiences are part of the reason they are in their seat of power.  I don't have the answer.  I don't think DT is completely wrong in his opinion but I don't think he's completely right.  [/quote]

Right. Trump was merely reacting to unfair rulings by this particular judge. It's reasonable to question this judge's background could produce bias against him.[/quote]

Not really.

First of all, I didn't particularly like Sotamayor's comment. I get what she meant by it, but thought it was poorly expressed at best. But in any case, her point was that a wide variety of perspective and life preexistence could improve the functioning of the federal judiciary. In that sense, having ethnically diverse judges decreases "bias" in the statistical sense. Trump was saying that [b]anyone who has a particular background that he has arguably insulted is inherently "biased," as in "prejudiced" against him.[/b] That's a dumb and racist thing to say.

You're now making a slightly softer criticism than Trump, which is that it is [i]possible[/i] someone's background could cause them to be biased. And yes, that's true. But that doesn't suddenly make it reasonable to accuse a particular person of ethnic or nationalistic bias based solely on the fact that they disagreed with you on a pretrial motion. And let's be clear that [b]any somewhat informed lawyer[/b] will tell you that the rulings that have gone against Trump have been on routine pre-trial issues. Trump is trying to play up that there's something shocking about the fact that many judges allow you to substitute named plaintiffs in class actions. But there's nothing unusual or notable about that decision even if you think Curiel got it wrong, so to immediately trash him and stock ethnic tensions is exceptionally befitting of someone who wants to be President, as even many people who have endorsed Trump have already said.[/quote]

I don't like Trump's comments either. But I don't think they are racist. He never said all Mexican are biased against him. He said this particular judge hates him and he is proud of his heritage and that's fine. It is entirely possible that this judge's background could cause him to be biased.

Trump said his lawyers and some legal experts he consulted didn't think the rulings have been fair, particularly allowing the chief plaintiff to withdraw but not dismissing the case. Their defense was built on attacking this key witness and the judge granted the withdraw. [/quote]

But that is all just more bullshit from Trump. He knows nothing about the law or the courts. Curiel's rulings were by the book rulings. Trump asked for summary judgment and the judge went point by point and granted it on a few points (e.g. no injunction against TU since it is not currently operating), but not on the points that are in dispute and will have to be decided at trial. Nobody who knows anything about the law would expect full summary judgment in this case. Almost any judge would have made the same rulings. There is nothing at all surprising or questionable about Curiel's rulings so far in the case, and if there were, then he and his lawyers should appeal the ruling, not accuse the judge of prejudice simply because of his ethnic heritage.

Here are the facts and commentary from legal experts: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/07/sorry-donald-trump-the-mexican-judge-was-just-following-the-law/

[i]When a judge grants a summary judgment, it’s usually for a narrow and straightforward issue, said Kevin Johnson, dean of the University of California at Davis School of Law.
For example, a judge may grant it if someone is suing a defendant who has immunity from that specific lawsuit. Or a judge may grant it if someone was bringing an asbestos lawsuit against a manufacturer — but the manufacturer wasn’t making any products during the time that person claims they were injured.
“In any kind of complex factual case, it’s very hard to get summary judgment,” Johnson said. “The [Supreme] Court has made it clear that only in certain, limited cases will summary judgment be granted.… We have a Constitution that requires civil cases to be submitted to a jury if there’s enough fact and dispute — and that’s a pretty important right to most people.”
[/i][/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics