Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Troll score = 0

Ethnic diversity (as well as any sort of diversity on SCOTUS, such as sexual, religious, SES, age, etc) increases SCOTUS's ability to avoid bias by providing 9 (ahem, SHOULD be 9) exceptional minds who don't all think the same way.

If a plurality of opinions didn't make the court smarter, than SCOTUS would be one person, wouldn't it?

You are a really bad troll.

You just reaffirmed the thesis that ethnic background can cause biased judgement.

Logic failure! Diversity avoids bias, dummy. Or do you think that white male judge who only gave the white male rapist a 6-month sentence was totally cool? Oh, you're a DT supporter, so obviously you're white, so yeah, diversity's bad for you since it decreases your privilege.

Hmm.

In my experience as a non-white non-black immigrant, blacks are much more biased than whites. So, not sure I buy that diversity argument, unless you mean something very different from race itself.

Diversity doesn't necessarily avoid bias. But it can help. I don't think the judge in the Brock whatever-his-name-is case should have given such a light sentence, but neither do I agree with the calls for his removal. It's important for the judiciary to be independent. Some judges are light sentencers and some are heavy sentencers. For some it will depend on the case. And for many people, judges or not, unconscious bias comes into play. It's well documented that black defendants on average get heavier sentences than white defendants, regardless of the race of the judge. It's also well documented that sexual assault tends to result in lighter sentences than comparable violent crimes. Would a female judge of any race have given a heavier sentence? Maybe. Maybe not. There are so many factors at play that it's difficult to say in an individual case.

I agree with a lot of what you say, which is why I believe previous poster saying "diversity avoids bias, dummy" is being either naive childish or adult stupidish.

Yes, I agree. Diversity can help[i] avoid bias but it can't [i]guarantee it! And to the extent it helps it's usually in the aggregate. I have had cases before very fine judges who were white, Christian, straight, Republican males. I have had cases before lousy judges who were women, non-white, or otherwise "diverse." Individual judges are individual judges. But it's probably better in the long run if the judiciary as a whole is more reflective of the nation, just as it's better if elected officials are somewhat more reflective of the nation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Troll score = 0

Ethnic diversity (as well as any sort of diversity on SCOTUS, such as sexual, religious, SES, age, etc) increases SCOTUS's ability to avoid bias by providing 9 (ahem, SHOULD be 9) exceptional minds who don't all think the same way.

If a plurality of opinions didn't make the court smarter, than SCOTUS would be one person, wouldn't it?

You are a really bad troll.

You just reaffirmed the thesis that ethnic background can cause biased judgement.

Logic failure! Diversity avoids bias, dummy. Or do you think that white male judge who only gave the white male rapist a 6-month sentence was totally cool? Oh, you're a DT supporter, so obviously you're white, so yeah, diversity's bad for you since it decreases your privilege.

Actually, PP is correct. You're making essentially the same argument as Trump: ethnicity determines POV.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Troll score = 0

Ethnic diversity (as well as any sort of diversity on SCOTUS, such as sexual, religious, SES, age, etc) increases SCOTUS's ability to avoid bias by providing 9 (ahem, SHOULD be 9) exceptional minds who don't all think the same way.

If a plurality of opinions didn't make the court smarter, than SCOTUS would be one person, wouldn't it?

You are a really bad troll.

You just reaffirmed the thesis that ethnic background can cause biased judgement.

Logic failure! Diversity avoids bias, dummy. Or do you think that white male judge who only gave the white male rapist a 6-month sentence was totally cool? Oh, you're a DT supporter, so obviously you're white, so yeah, diversity's bad for you since it decreases your privilege.

Hmm.

In my experience as a non-white non-black immigrant, blacks are much more biased than whites. So, not sure I buy that diversity argument, unless you mean something very different from race itself.

Diversity doesn't necessarily avoid bias. But it can help. I don't think the judge in the Brock whatever-his-name-is case should have given such a light sentence, but neither do I agree with the calls for his removal. It's important for the judiciary to be independent. Some judges are light sentencers and some are heavy sentencers. For some it will depend on the case. And for many people, judges or not, unconscious bias comes into play. It's well documented that black defendants on average get heavier sentences than white defendants, regardless of the race of the judge. It's also well documented that sexual assault tends to result in lighter sentences than comparable violent crimes. Would a female judge of any race have given a heavier sentence? Maybe. Maybe not. There are so many factors at play that it's difficult to say in an individual case.

I agree with a lot of what you say, which is why I believe previous poster saying "diversity avoids bias, dummy" is being either naive childish or adult stupidish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Troll score = 0

Ethnic diversity (as well as any sort of diversity on SCOTUS, such as sexual, religious, SES, age, etc) increases SCOTUS's ability to avoid bias by providing 9 (ahem, SHOULD be 9) exceptional minds who don't all think the same way.

If a plurality of opinions didn't make the court smarter, than SCOTUS would be one person, wouldn't it?

You are a really bad troll.

You just reaffirmed the thesis that ethnic background can cause biased judgement.

Logic failure! Diversity avoids bias, dummy. Or do you think that white male judge who only gave the white male rapist a 6-month sentence was totally cool? Oh, you're a DT supporter, so obviously you're white, so yeah, diversity's bad for you since it decreases your privilege.

Hmm.

In my experience as a non-white non-black immigrant, blacks are much more biased than whites. So, not sure I buy that diversity argument, unless you mean something very different from race itself.

Diversity doesn't necessarily avoid bias. But it can help. I don't think the judge in the Brock whatever-his-name-is case should have given such a light sentence, but neither do I agree with the calls for his removal. It's important for the judiciary to be independent. Some judges are light sentencers and some are heavy sentencers. For some it will depend on the case. And for many people, judges or not, unconscious bias comes into play. It's well documented that black defendants on average get heavier sentences than white defendants, regardless of the race of the judge. It's also well documented that sexual assault tends to result in lighter sentences than comparable violent crimes. Would a female judge of any race have given a heavier sentence? Maybe. Maybe not. There are so many factors at play that it's difficult to say in an individual case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue.

You misunderstand class-action litigation, just like Trump thinks you will, because it is complicated. Lead plaintiffs and class representatives can definitely be substituted, it happens all the time. You don't dismiss a class-action suit when the class has 1000 potentially defrauded plaintiffs because one wasn't the best choice to represent the class. If she had pursued an INDIVIDUAL lawsuit for fraud against Trump, then it may have been appropriate to dismiss. I say "may" because documents reveal that "students" had to complete said surveys in clear view of and under pressure from the "teachers." But that is not at all the same as a class action.

Fair enough.

He is still biased, however. Clearly so. Especially given his financial ties to the Clintons

I thought he was biased because he was Mexican? I definitely remember hearing that many times.

His Mexican heritage is obviously very strong, otherwise he would not belong to the professional organizations he does, nor would he have helped illegals with scholarship money.

And just like most judges he can set that aside and apply the laws like he's supposed to do. That's what judges do. It's not like there are no checks; if a judge truly makes egregious rulings his rulings will be appealed and he can be reported to the judicial ethics panel, which can take disciplinary action against him. There is nothing remotely suggestive of that here. If the judge were out protesting Trump, or loudly proclaimed that he hates Trump, then ok -- possible bias. But just being who he is is not bias! Trump is the one acting badly here, not the judge.

By way of example, if a white judge belonged to the KKK I would say you might have a bias argument when a minority comes before him because the KKK has an anti-minority mission statement. But professional organizations that are simply ethnicity, religion, or gender-affiliated but have no specific mission statement are not sources of bias.

Please! Sotomayor would not have gotten away with saying what she did if people like you really thought that was the case - that they can set it aside. Furthermore, dems here are all about the "We MUST elect a democrat because....Supreme Court appointments." You know DAMN well that kind of neutrality is not the case anymore.

The bolded? I dare say a professional organization that aids those that break the law because of their ethnicity are indeed biased.

I am a Democrat and I think what Sotomayor said was stupid and inartfully phrased. I stand behind the idea that you need diversity of viewpoints so that when it matters, you can understand experiences that are not your own. It might matter in a criminal case. It might matter in an employment or harassment case. It's very unlikely to matter in a run-of-the-mill class action fraud case.

As an example, in a recent Supreme Court argument there was a clear split between the male and female justices over whether school officials who performed a strip search of a teenage girl had violated her civil rights. The male justices expressed views along the lines of "it's just some clothes, what's the big deal?" while the female justices seemed more sympathetic to the humiliation a 13 or 14 year old girl feels when stripped naked, even in front of other women. In a case like that where one's understanding of the facts can be informed by one's own life experience, is it not more equitable to have a diversity of viewpoints?

I would agree that a professional organization that intentionally aids anyone in breaking the law is not an organization with which a judge should be affiliated. However, I highly doubt you can back that claim up with credible evidence. If I am wrong, I will stand corrected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Troll score = 0

Ethnic diversity (as well as any sort of diversity on SCOTUS, such as sexual, religious, SES, age, etc) increases SCOTUS's ability to avoid bias by providing 9 (ahem, SHOULD be 9) exceptional minds who don't all think the same way.

If a plurality of opinions didn't make the court smarter, than SCOTUS would be one person, wouldn't it?

You are a really bad troll.

You just reaffirmed the thesis that ethnic background can cause biased judgement.

Logic failure! Diversity avoids bias, dummy. Or do you think that white male judge who only gave the white male rapist a 6-month sentence was totally cool? Oh, you're a DT supporter, so obviously you're white, so yeah, diversity's bad for you since it decreases your privilege.

Hmm.

In my experience as a non-white non-black immigrant, blacks are much more biased than whites. So, not sure I buy that diversity argument, unless you mean something very different from race itself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue.

You misunderstand class-action litigation, just like Trump thinks you will, because it is complicated. Lead plaintiffs and class representatives can definitely be substituted, it happens all the time. You don't dismiss a class-action suit when the class has 1000 potentially defrauded plaintiffs because one wasn't the best choice to represent the class. If she had pursued an INDIVIDUAL lawsuit for fraud against Trump, then it may have been appropriate to dismiss. I say "may" because documents reveal that "students" had to complete said surveys in clear view of and under pressure from the "teachers." But that is not at all the same as a class action.

Fair enough.

He is still biased, however. Clearly so. Especially given his financial ties to the Clintons

Jesus Christ with your "his financial ties to the Clintons." There is a whole different thread here about this "issue" laughing at people like you for actually thinking it is real. I will quote the OP from that thread and my response below:

[i]OP: So one of Trump's arguments (once he moved on from claiming the judge was biased based on his Mexican heritage) is that the law firms representing the plaintiffs had given to the Clinton campaign. Turns out even Trump's own attorney is a longtime Clinton supporter and has donated to her campaign as recently as this year. And Trump himself has donated to Hillary's campaign. So basically everyone involved in the lawsuit (except for the judge) has donated to the Clintons.

Too funny!

ME: That is funny. Basically every plaintiff-side class-action litigation firm donates buckets of money to Democrats, so if Trump finds that unfair, his only remedy is not to defraud enough people to form a class that wants their money back.[i]

What does that tell you about the Clintons? And about Democrats?

It tells me that the Clintons are Democrats. And, like most other Democrats, have always pushed for legislation that favors the little guy over the big business. And that once Democrats are elected, they can write, introduce, vote for, sign into law and otherwise influence that legislation. And being that all that is so, that plaintiff-side law firms, who represent the little guy suing the big business, have an interest in getting more Democrats elected.

Before you cry and whine and stomp your feet about it, the big businesses are doing the same goddamn thing, they're just donating to Republicans instead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue.

You misunderstand class-action litigation, just like Trump thinks you will, because it is complicated. Lead plaintiffs and class representatives can definitely be substituted, it happens all the time. You don't dismiss a class-action suit when the class has 1000 potentially defrauded plaintiffs because one wasn't the best choice to represent the class. If she had pursued an INDIVIDUAL lawsuit for fraud against Trump, then it may have been appropriate to dismiss. I say "may" because documents reveal that "students" had to complete said surveys in clear view of and under pressure from the "teachers." But that is not at all the same as a class action.

Fair enough.

He is still biased, however. Clearly so. Especially given his financial ties to the Clintons

I thought he was biased because he was Mexican? I definitely remember hearing that many times.

His Mexican heritage is obviously very strong, otherwise he would not belong to the professional organizations he does, nor would he have helped illegals with scholarship money.

And just like most judges he can set that aside and apply the laws like he's supposed to do. That's what judges do. It's not like there are no checks; if a judge truly makes egregious rulings his rulings will be appealed and he can be reported to the judicial ethics panel, which can take disciplinary action against him. There is nothing remotely suggestive of that here. If the judge were out protesting Trump, or loudly proclaimed that he hates Trump, then ok -- possible bias. But just being who he is is not bias! Trump is the one acting badly here, not the judge.

By way of example, if a white judge belonged to the KKK I would say you might have a bias argument when a minority comes before him because the KKK has an anti-minority mission statement. But professional organizations that are simply ethnicity, religion, or gender-affiliated but have no specific mission statement are not sources of bias.

Please! Sotomayor would not have gotten away with saying what she did if people like you really thought that was the case - that they can set it aside. Furthermore, dems here are all about the "We MUST elect a democrat because....Supreme Court appointments." You know DAMN well that kind of neutrality is not the case anymore.

The bolded? I dare say a professional organization that aids those that break the law because of their ethnicity are indeed biased.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue.

You misunderstand class-action litigation, just like Trump thinks you will, because it is complicated. Lead plaintiffs and class representatives can definitely be substituted, it happens all the time. You don't dismiss a class-action suit when the class has 1000 potentially defrauded plaintiffs because one wasn't the best choice to represent the class. If she had pursued an INDIVIDUAL lawsuit for fraud against Trump, then it may have been appropriate to dismiss. I say "may" because documents reveal that "students" had to complete said surveys in clear view of and under pressure from the "teachers." But that is not at all the same as a class action.

Fair enough.

He is still biased, however. Clearly so. Especially given his financial ties to the Clintons

Jesus Christ with your "his financial ties to the Clintons." There is a whole different thread here about this "issue" laughing at people like you for actually thinking it is real. I will quote the OP from that thread and my response below:

[i]OP: So one of Trump's arguments (once he moved on from claiming the judge was biased based on his Mexican heritage) is that the law firms representing the plaintiffs had given to the Clinton campaign. Turns out even Trump's own attorney is a longtime Clinton supporter and has donated to her campaign as recently as this year. And Trump himself has donated to Hillary's campaign. So basically everyone involved in the lawsuit (except for the judge) has donated to the Clintons.

Too funny!

ME: That is funny. Basically every plaintiff-side class-action litigation firm donates buckets of money to Democrats, so if Trump finds that unfair, his only remedy is not to defraud enough people to form a class that wants their money back.[i]

What does that tell you about the Clintons? And about Democrats?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue.

You misunderstand class-action litigation, just like Trump thinks you will, because it is complicated. Lead plaintiffs and class representatives can definitely be substituted, it happens all the time. You don't dismiss a class-action suit when the class has 1000 potentially defrauded plaintiffs because one wasn't the best choice to represent the class. If she had pursued an INDIVIDUAL lawsuit for fraud against Trump, then it may have been appropriate to dismiss. I say "may" because documents reveal that "students" had to complete said surveys in clear view of and under pressure from the "teachers." But that is not at all the same as a class action.

Fair enough.

He is still biased, however. Clearly so. Especially given his financial ties to the Clintons

I thought he was biased because he was Mexican? I definitely remember hearing that many times.

His Mexican heritage is obviously very strong, otherwise he would not belong to the professional organizations he does, nor would he have helped illegals with scholarship money.

And just like most judges he can set that aside and apply the laws like he's supposed to do. That's what judges do. It's not like there are no checks; if a judge truly makes egregious rulings his rulings will be appealed and he can be reported to the judicial ethics panel, which can take disciplinary action against him. There is nothing remotely suggestive of that here. If the judge were out protesting Trump, or loudly proclaimed that he hates Trump, then ok -- possible bias. But just being who he is is not bias! Trump is the one acting badly here, not the judge.

By way of example, if a white judge belonged to the KKK I would say you might have a bias argument when a minority comes before him because the KKK has an anti-minority mission statement. But professional organizations that are simply ethnicity, religion, or gender-affiliated but have no specific mission statement are not sources of bias.

All right, I must know. There is clearly at least one person here trying really hard to promote supposed conspiracies about the Trump University class action litigation.

My questions, should you choose to answer or merely ponder them:

If you actually want this guy to be President, why are you so excited about this stupid catfight regarding his personal litigation? Why has Trump been focused on this issue for weeks when he has had free rein as the only presumptive nominee until last night to campaign for the general election in the half dozen swing states that he needs to win? What new voters is this issue winning over? How is this a needed pivot to the center? How is this helping his campaign?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judges in CA are not allowed to be affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America because of their stance towards gay people. This judge belongs to a group affiliated with the larger La Raza (which wants to take CA back for Mexico), belongs to a Hispanic lawyers group, and recused the original plaintiff for the case because she actually reviewed Trump U. well. Biased is EXACTLY what this judge is.

"Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue.
"

You are repeating a lot of false statements.

Really?

http://www.npr.org/2015/03/16/392360308/california-judges-must-cut-ties-with-the-boy-scouts

As for the others:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/06/07/la-raza-judge-gonzalo-curiel-and-the-hispanic-national-bar-association/

Yes, really. Read the facts and law from objective legal experts:
Column Donald Trump actually has gotten a very fair shake from his 'Mexican' judge
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-trump-judge-20160608-snap-story.html

Law firm also affiliated with Clinton money. Smells all around.

You mean Trump's law firm, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue.

You misunderstand class-action litigation, just like Trump thinks you will, because it is complicated. Lead plaintiffs and class representatives can definitely be substituted, it happens all the time. You don't dismiss a class-action suit when the class has 1000 potentially defrauded plaintiffs because one wasn't the best choice to represent the class. If she had pursued an INDIVIDUAL lawsuit for fraud against Trump, then it may have been appropriate to dismiss. I say "may" because documents reveal that "students" had to complete said surveys in clear view of and under pressure from the "teachers." But that is not at all the same as a class action.

Fair enough.

He is still biased, however. Clearly so. Especially given his financial ties to the Clintons

Jesus Christ with your "his financial ties to the Clintons." There is a whole different thread here about this "issue" laughing at people like you for actually thinking it is real. I will quote the OP from that thread and my response below:

[i]OP: So one of Trump's arguments (once he moved on from claiming the judge was biased based on his Mexican heritage) is that the law firms representing the plaintiffs had given to the Clinton campaign. Turns out even Trump's own attorney is a longtime Clinton supporter and has donated to her campaign as recently as this year. And Trump himself has donated to Hillary's campaign. So basically everyone involved in the lawsuit (except for the judge) has donated to the Clintons.

Too funny!

ME: That is funny. Basically every plaintiff-side class-action litigation firm donates buckets of money to Democrats, so if Trump finds that unfair, his only remedy is not to defraud enough people to form a class that wants their money back.[i]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue.

You misunderstand class-action litigation, just like Trump thinks you will, because it is complicated. Lead plaintiffs and class representatives can definitely be substituted, it happens all the time. You don't dismiss a class-action suit when the class has 1000 potentially defrauded plaintiffs because one wasn't the best choice to represent the class. If she had pursued an INDIVIDUAL lawsuit for fraud against Trump, then it may have been appropriate to dismiss. I say "may" because documents reveal that "students" had to complete said surveys in clear view of and under pressure from the "teachers." But that is not at all the same as a class action.

Fair enough.

He is still biased, however. Clearly so. Especially given his financial ties to the Clintons

I thought he was biased because he was Mexican? I definitely remember hearing that many times.

His Mexican heritage is obviously very strong, otherwise he would not belong to the professional organizations he does, nor would he have helped illegals with scholarship money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judges in CA are not allowed to be affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America because of their stance towards gay people. This judge belongs to a group affiliated with the larger La Raza (which wants to take CA back for Mexico), belongs to a Hispanic lawyers group, and recused the original plaintiff for the case because she actually reviewed Trump U. well. Biased is EXACTLY what this judge is.

"Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue.
"

You are repeating a lot of false statements.

Really?

http://www.npr.org/2015/03/16/392360308/california-judges-must-cut-ties-with-the-boy-scouts

As for the others:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/06/07/la-raza-judge-gonzalo-curiel-and-the-hispanic-national-bar-association/

Yes, really. Read the facts and law from objective legal experts:
Column Donald Trump actually has gotten a very fair shake from his 'Mexican' judge
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-trump-judge-20160608-snap-story.html

Law firm also affiliated with Clinton money. Smells all around.

The judge aids and abets illegals, awarding scholarship money. Not only is that a conflict, it's also unethical.