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.

Let's take a look at the statue of Justice, shall we? See that blindfold? That means something. Justice is supposed to be blind/

A female judge should NOT be giving a heavier sentence because she is XX. That would be biased. It shouldn't even come into play. The judge in Brock Turner case didn't judge lightly because ... XY... He took into consideration, the kid's lack of priors, the fact that there was no evidence he deliberately dragged her behind a dumpster with intent to rape and the fact that they were both so intoxicated, there was no way of knowing whether he was even aware of the fact she was passed out. Those pissed about it are angry because they feel that HER intoxication should not even BE considered, that her lack of knowledge should even BE considered.

When a judge of Hispanic origin rewards illegal aliens with scholarships, he is showing his bias. As a judge, he knows immigration law and is blatantly ignoring it. HUGE problem, as Trump would say. And he would be correct.

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.

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.