The NYT article tells us that Sotomayor's remarks were published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal and that she also said:
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”...So has Donald Trump refrained from doing a disservice both to the law and society?
... Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.” She added, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”
She also approvingly quoted several law professors who said that “to judge is an exercise of power” and that “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,” she said.
Posts
117 comments:
“there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,”
There is a reason Lady Justice is blindfolded....so she won't be guided by perspectives.
If judges cannot be objective, than the whole rationale for our legal system falls away. We might as well go back to duels and trial by combat.
How many times do we have to tell you ignorant bigots, it's different when we do it!
Does she mean that a wise latina can apply the law better? Or interpret it in more ways that achieve "justice"? Who cares about the law?
So, based on this, is "judged by a jury of your peers" now need to also include a "by a judge who is your peer" (i.e. same sex, race, and religion)?
It must as that is what a "wise Latina" said...
If a judge is just calling balls and strikes (ask John Roberts) it makes no difference if the pitcher, batter and ump are white, black, Asian or Hispanic. Or even gay.
That's the whole problem of diversity on the bench.
David Begley said...
If a judge is just calling balls and strikes (ask John Roberts) it makes no difference if the pitcher, batter and ump are white, black, Asian or Hispanic. Or even gay.
That's the whole problem of diversity on the bench.
6/7/16, 11:01 AM
Some strike-zones are more equal (bigger) than other strike-zones.
Also, what does John Roberts know? Just some old white guy, no insight or value to be had there [these days]...
So has Donald Trump refrained from doing a disservice both to the law and society?
What a strange way for you to phrase this. Lawyers! Can any of you ever avoid abusing the English language?
Trump wants to win the case (N.B., he seems to want to win everything -- which is actually a weakness he shares with Hillary Clinton) and the most certain route to success is to make the cause about the judge.
"I call it 'The Last Resort Rule.' It was taught to me by a great teacher at Columbia Law School named Jerome Michael, who taught a course in appellate advocacy. At the last moment in the last class of the course, when he had taught us everything he knew, he said: 'These are my final words on advocacy. If you have the facts on your side, hammer the facts. If you have the law on your side, hammer the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law, hammer the table.' ”
Donald Trump demonstrates his creativity by finding a new way to hammer the table.
NO FAIR, Professor! You can't hold the Left to any standard, much less expect any kind of consistency from them!
When they want to imply that race matters (wise Latina, "jury composed of white people", etc) they are free to do so. When they want to call any such suggestion ("how dare you assume someone will have a certain viewpoint just because of their race!") they are free to do so.
Being on the Left means never having to make sense or have any real "principles" at all...and the Media is firmly on the Left.
It's part of what makes their push for "diversity" so silly, illogical, and downright nonsensical. On the one hand they insist that all people are alike, that you can't make judgement or assumptions (even based on objective measures!) about an individual or a group due to characteristics like race, sex, ethnicity, sexuality, etc. On the other hand they INSIST that those differences are supremely important and only by enforcing a rule that people of different race, sex, ethnicity, etc, are included can the full spectrum of viewpoint, experience, and strengths be realized--not to mention because that's the only way to be "fair." So they simultaneously insist that individuals and groups with different characteristics are no different from one another AND that their differences are important (must be celebrated!) and those differences have to be taken into account (under threat of law, naturally).
It's a ridiculous world we live in, sure...but never forget that this ridiculous is enforced by nice people (like the Professor) who will call anyone who points out the illogical and insulting nature of the Leftist diversity racket a bigot, racist, sexist, or just a meanie/aggressor in the culture war in a SECOND.
I really think we could all drop the stupid act if not for the very real threat of being called racist/sexist/homophobic all the time (with the attendant loss of job/career/standing/relationships, of course). But hey, what's important is not to hurt anyone's feelings.
The thing staring us in the face is LaRaza's announced righteous war on ethnic Whites by ethnic "non-whites". They want the authority in their hands.
But unlike the descendants of African slaves, these Spanish guys and gals have zero moral claims on us. The can only claim a mild resentment for The Mexican war which was won from Spanish Tyrants fair and square by another Scottish Presbyterian protege of Old Hickory named James K Polk.
The racists are the ones speaking Spanish. They all want to reimpose a European style hierarchy rulership in place of our elected Representative Government which is too Yankee White (read uncivilized) for their tastes.
This is entirely consistent. Trump's judge-of-Mexican-ancestry cannot reasonably said to be "biased against him" because his ancestry can only make him wiser, right?
She also approvingly quoted several law professors who said that “to judge is an exercise of power” and that “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,” she said.
It appears she fully embraces subjectivity without understanding the implications. Of course, that makes her claim pointless that "the richness of her experience" leads to better conclusions. Her subjective conclusions have no objective basis in truth and so are just one wise Latina's view, no better or worse than the subjective view of the next person.
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Why wouldn't you wish that they both would come up with the correct decision?
My theory is, the real reason Mexicans hate us is for culturally appropriating their food---and then sprinkling grated Cheddar cheese all over it.
Obviously, we have a lot to answer for!
But if it's all about power, there is no "correct decision", just the one that advantages the preferred group.
"Donald Trump demonstrates his creativity by finding a new way to hammer the table."
The issue here is the fact that the Trump U case will be used as a club, similar to the Romney killed my wife" club used four years ago, and that is probably why Trump went after the judge. I wish he had been more clear about the La Raza story and the history of the judge with Hillary donors but the results are still not clear.
Was this a "fatal mistake" as some faint hearts are saying ? Or is Trump showing once again how the old rules just don't apply?
I am a spectator, not an advocate.
I don't know but at least it is entertaining.
It's a matter of discerning cause and effect. However, Trump is known to play by the rules set in Democrat districts, including [class] diversity discrimination, anti-native policies, and pro-choice judges. The expectation is that he will use that inside knowledge to expose, marginalize, and shutdown these special and peculiar domestic and foreign interests.
Spain invaded Mexico. Mexican culture is not native. Give Mexico back to the original Mexicans, then we can talk.
Or is Trump showing once again how the old rules just don't apply?
Trump says on the campaign stump what many of us scream at the TV during the evening news. That is his secret to success.
Trump is only saying that the judge is acting as a leftist, not that he himself is.
How can we ever talk about these things without Trump?
Does anyone remember how our current president and his previous attorney general used to tell us they wanted to have a conversation about race? But ever time we start to have that conversation it's shut down by cries of racism. Ugh.
I've got an idea. Instead of reflexively telling us Trump is a racist, tell us why we can trust the ruling of this particular judge in this case.
We have heard the evidence of why he is biased. And for me, it's convincing. But, maybe I'm wrong. Tell me why his membership in a Hispanic advocacy group isn't a bias against Trump.
Or, you could just keep shouting racist.
Good to keep the judge thing going. This will do as much to depress Trump's favorability rating over the next several weeks as anything. He's like a dog with a bone.
Wait - how can we forget that Trump claimed in a debate and twittered a pic showing that Trump U. students rated the school highly with an "A" on BBB. But a trip to BBB finds that The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative is "Not Rated" and out-of-business with the following 2013 news article attached: "A.G. Schneiderman Sues Donald Trump, Trump University & Michael Sexton For Defrauding Consumers Out Of $40 Million With Sham 'University'"
So La Raza didn't start this fight and Trump got caught lying to us yet again.
From what I have heard regarding this judge is that he favors 'open borders'. Even if he could be objective, this is certainly good reason for him to recuse himself from trying someone who is advocating a wall. If he were a prospective juror, he would be quickly eliminated from the panel.
Big Mike/
That "hammer the table" bit was stolen, I think, by your professor from Texas' "Race Horse Harry" Haynes, a famous criminal defense attny from days of yore who was, iirc, first attributed to expounding that saying. Only Harry used the word "pound" in lieu of "hammer."
Put the shoe on the other foot... could a white judge express such a racist outlook on the administration of the Law and escape impeachment?
Isn't she suggesting that women and minorities are not up to the task of being impartial judges? And they say white men are the bigots?
The soft bigotry of low expectations is an equal opportunity "perspective".
Put the shoe on the other foot... could a white judge express such a racist outlook on the administration of the Law and escape impeachment?
Now, now, Quaestor! We all know that people of color are unimpeachable. ;-)
it doesn't matter what Trump says, the leftards are always gonna scream racism. They do every election cycle. These are intellectually bankrupt losers. The GOP establishment is simply caving, once again, and playing on their turf.
Agree with Trump. These leftists like soda-meyer and Muriel are always demanding more Latinos as judges because they believe they'll get more pro-Latino results and stick it to whitey more. Now they complain that Trump has taken them up on their offer and called them out on it. Instead of playing their tired race card they should own it. OWN IT. You want more Latino (or whatever flavor of the month is) judges because they'll produce more leftist results and more racist results that you like. OWN IT!
gadfly said... [hush][hide comment]
Wait - how can we forget that Trump claimed in a debate and twittered a pic showing that Trump U. students rated the school highly with an "A" on BBB. But a trip to BBB finds that The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative is "Not Rated" and out-of-business with the following 2013 news article attached: "A.G. Schneiderman Sues Donald Trump, Trump University & Michael Sexton For Defrauding Consumers Out Of $40 Million With Sham 'University'"
So La Raza didn't start this fight and Trump got caught lying to us yet again.
6/7/16, 11:56 AM
Trump may very well be a liar, a cheat, a scoundrel, sexist, raciest, woman denigrating cad, and a poor sportsman. What he is not is "Hillary" and as such, is what I and many others will vote for. Not because we like him. Not because he is worthy of the office. Not because he is anywhere close to being right for the job. We will vote for him because Hillary is and would be worst and we are [sadly] stuck with selecting the demon over the Devil.
Also, there is NO one on all of God's green Earth that deserves to NOT get elected President more than Hillary.
And there are intellectual "Conservatives" becoming independents over Trump. Lol.
""I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.""
And thus make our legal system more like those in Latin America. Something to look forward to.
Trump again out maneuvering the media and the hide bound politicians.
First. Say something vague that on its face sounds outrageous. Get everyone up in arms. "The judge is an activist judge. Biased. His Hispanic heritage makes him unable to be a fair judge." How dare you say such a thing!!! they say. George Will and the rest of the RINO club clutch their pearls. Aha, Trump is a racist and unfairly attacking the judge, the Democrats chortle. Now we have him.
Then. The trickle of truth comes out. The judge DOES belong to multiple racially and politically motivated groups that support amnesty and hate Trump personally. One of which specifically last year called for a boycott of all things Trump
The Hispanic National Bar Association published a press release on July 2nd 2015 which specifically stated their intention to target the “business interests” of Donald Trump:
Next Trump stands down while the truth and reality of the issue is realized. The Judge IS biased. The illegal aliens DO commit crimes in higher amounts than previously admitted. Trump lets others bring the information forward and he is vindicated.
AND Everyone is discussing what was previously unspeakable because Trump has the balls to say it. Trump calls the tune and like it or not, the media gets sucked in again. Trump saying what we are all thinking and shining light on the politically incorrect bad think things that are true but hidden.
I love it. One has to wonder if he is truly this masterful or just accidentally controlling the narrative. Purposely throwing that tar baby into the bushes? Either way. About time we were able to discuss what would otherwise be hidden.
Gahrie said...
We might as well go back to duels and trial by combat.
Prominent Harvard Law professor: ‘The rule of law’ and ‘the First Amendment’ are ‘almost entirely without content’ ...
"Tushnet’s views are hardly unique, but broadly reflect the views of scholars associated with various “critical movements” (Critical Legal Studies, Critical Race Theory, Catharine MacKinnon-style feminism)."
What DBQ said.
And what's sad is she is just as medicore as Hillary. There are many women (of all races) 10x more qualified, with 100x more integrity, for SCOTUS or a potential POTUS.
My "La Raza Lawyer's Association" is not affiliated with National Council of La Raza. Different website, even.
My "Klansmen's National Bar Association" is not affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan. Different website even.
I just got back from jury duty. If anyone thinks they will have a jury of their peers forget it. I didn't consider anyone in the room with me my peer, nor would I look hopefully at them if they were in judgement of me. It's all the wonderful diversity, a phrase which was mentioned in a short documentary we jurors were shown. I snorted at that line which is akin to yelling at my TV set when the news is on although I don't watch TV anymore and haven't in ten years. I don't think Trump can put Humpty-Dumpty back together again but want to give him a chance. Go Trump 2016!
Blogger furious_a said...
My "La Raza Lawyer's Association" is not affiliated with National Council of La Raza. Different website, even.
My "Klansmen's National Bar Association" is not affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan. Different website even.
Or, my Nazi Bar Association isn't affiliated with the Nazi party. Heck, the Nazi party doesn't even exist anymore!
Absutely correct, DBQ. Spot on.
Judicial relativism is the logical extension of moral relativism. If morals are not absolute, then laws based on morals are not absolute either. These laws are merely applied based upon the subjective whims of the Judge at the time. Then all law becomes a moving target. This is an destructive path paved by idiots.
DBQ, a larger issue that IMHO is not being looked into is the extensive ties to hard core lefty causes by both the plaintiff's firm, and of course La Raza, both of which despise the right, and double-despise Trump. They'd get their jollies off being able to bring him down.
For example, the P's firm did FIVE YEARS of pro bono work (likely millions of $ in free atty time) to network, enlist social media co.'s, and use the courts to pass SSM. A judge allegedly close to an atty at the firm was the one that overruled the Proposition where the people of Cal had spoken. All they were asking for was marriage to be 1M+1W, and in no way did I, nor anyone I know, gay or straight, ever wish to exclude SSC's from some similar type of Union. Since it was, by definition, a new composition, even a new name for the union would have been fine with us. (Most of us mainly for social/courtesy reasons, no awkwardness then if someone is "married" wondering if it is to a M or W.) But the far left had to coopt an existing cis institution, as that is part of the dismantling of society, making it easier to keep driving towards full blown totalitarianism. (Or Marxism, or whatever freaky-ass pseudo thing they think they want this country to be.)
"Donald Trump continues to belligerently inject bigotry and divisive politics into the 2016 presidential contest, and now it has bled over into his legal troubles,” said HNBA National President Maldonado. “His personal attacks on Judge Curiel show a dangerous disregard and disrespect for separate and coequal branches of government. His irrelevant reference to Judge Curiel’s ethnicity is an attack on all of the honorable diverse members of our judiciary who serve this country. As the presumptive presidential nominee of a major political party, his attempts to undermine the integrity of our federal judicial system are truly unprecedented and place undue stress on our democracy."
Mr. Maldonado previously called on Donald Trump to apologize in February 2016 for remarks where he implied Judge Curiel’s Hispanic heritage would influence the proceedings of the class-action lawsuit against Trump University.
###
______________________________________________________________________
About the Hispanic National Bar Association
The Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA) is an incorporated, not-for-profit, national membership association that represents the interests of Hispanic attorneys, judges, law professors, legal assistants, law students, and legal professionals in the United States and its territories. Since 1972, the HNBA has acted as a force for positive change within the legal profession by creating opportunities for Hispanic lawyers and by helping generations of lawyers to succeed. The HNBA has also effectively advocated on issues of importance to the national Hispanic community.
"I love it."
Trump is making DBQ the happiest person in the universe! ok, maybe the happiest con at this blog, but still who doesn't want to be happy!
Indeed as the donald spreads happiness everywhere he goes ...
Judge Curiel's resume says he is a member of the Hispanic Nat'l Bar Assoc. which called for a boycott of Trump businesses after his 2015 remarks about illegal immigrants.
The law firm suing Trump U. has reputedly paid $675k to the Clinton's for speeches.
Curiel is the child of "Mexican immigrants."
All that and La Raza SD too. In light of Democrat "lawfare," why would Trump be concerned? /sarc
The issue here is the fact that the Trump U case will be used as a club, similar to the Romney killed my wife" club used four years ago, and that is probably why Trump went after the judge.
The Trump U case will be used as a club to show that Trump is as corrupt as Hillary. The Clinton campaign desperately wants to take Hillary's lack of ethics off the table by pointing out her opponents legal problems. Unfortunately for Republicans, Trump has made this so much easier.
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.""
I'm guessing that the opposite is not the case, in her opinion. If the defendant is a white male...sorry.
Also, I am struck by all of the agonizing over having to vote for Trump over Hillary. When you vote for Trump, you vote for the Republicans to control the executive branch of government, which today is threatening the public welfare far more than anything that Congress is doing. A vote for Hillary is unthinkable not only because of who she is but because it would mean continued control of the EPA, Justice etc. by far left Democrats.
Monopod: "Judicial relativism is the logical extension of moral relativism. If morals are not absolute, then laws based on morals are not absolute either."
Right. We are talking about nuanced "emanations from penumbras" here. However, it is not just laws based on morals. We are talking about all laws that can be diddled by judges to serve political ends, particularly Democrat political ends.
@ Meeena
Exactly. The ties to the law firm to Hispanic causes is one thing. Probably nothing overtly wrong with it as long as it is out in the open. Law firms are allowed to be advocates, Judges are NOT. However, the ties of that law firm to the Clintons in giving them 675K in speaking fees tends to further the suspicion that this entire law suit is politically motivated and the timing is suspect.
Once again. Things that NO one would be discussing if it weren't for Trump bringing these issues to light.
The HNBA has also effectively advocated on issues of importance to the national Hispanic community.
Including a vendetta against Trump personally and all things Trump.
Even Sotomayor has admitted that she would be a judge looking through the lens of her ethnicity.
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."
Sotomayor was explicitly saying that her view of judicial decision-making was related not to the law and the Constitution but her ethnic/racial heritage as a “wise Latina.”
Somehow that is OK for her? But we are expected to believe that another Latino judge, Curiel who belongs to exclusive Latino based ethnic and political groups would NOT be veiwing Trump through just such a distorted lens. Give me a break.
Trump just keeps ripping the scabs off of the issues. Seriously. Gotta love it.
Trump again says in plain english what people inherently think, maybe not at the forefront but everyone is tribal, and the public cannot take it.
Oh well, president trump will have a lot of years to bash political correctness, excellent.
Trump is making DBQ the happiest person in the universe! ok, maybe the happiest con at this blog, but still who doesn't want to be happy!
:-)
The only thing that would make me happier is a roaring Chewbacca mask.
Just as "any difference between men and women will be presented in such a way as to make women look better", "it's only racist, wrong, and horrible to say that gender or cultural or ethnic background affect a judge if it reflects negatively on a judge who's female or a minority."
Hey, I don't make these "rules"; if I did they'd be different.
Curiel is the child of "Mexican immigrants."
Anyone know if his parents were "legal" immigrants?
Or is he an Anchor baby?
Despite the fact that Mexican is not a race, there is still big time Racism going on against President Trump. Racism is Trump's complaint against them.
This Judge is a pure Racist. He is only for Hispanics and only against ethnic Whites and against Trump specifically for Trump's boldly threatening to impose real Border Control on the Mexican border. He wants it open so it can be used as an initial invasion point for trained teams of operatives of the enemy Arab and enemy Cuban armed attacks.
The Hispanics have nothing owed to them by white WASPS. They need quit this LaRaza dominance or go back to Spain where it belongs.
"his attempts to undermine the integrity of our federal judicial system are truly unprecedented and place undue stress on our democracy."
Shit. He's a piker compared to attorneys from the DOJ. Just ask the Federal judges they've repeatedly and intentionally lied to.
And there are intellectual "Conservatives" becoming independents over Trump. Lol
And there are young people becoming Republicans over Trump. Lulz.
Does she think she's the "wise Latina" she's referring to? That's how it seems.
It was a demonstration of the difference between "wise Latina" and "clever Latina".
The only thing that would make me happier is a roaring Chewbacca mask.
You gotta admit, that lady got a lot of enjoyment out of that mask.
DBQ
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness!
I'm happy that you're happy ...
Words mean certain things. To insist otherwise is to tell a lie.
I hope the counter-revolution is not as violent as it portends.
"My "La Raza Lawyer's Association" is not affiliated with National Council of La Raza. Different website, even."
So, a lawyer Association named La Raza is not oriented to Hispanic privilege ? What turnip truck dropped you off this morning?
How stupid does Paul Ryan look now?
"The Trump U case will be used as a club to show that Trump is as corrupt as Hillary. The Clinton campaign desperately wants to take Hillary's lack of ethics off the table by pointing out her opponents legal problems. Unfortunately for Republicans, Trump has made this so much easier. "
Perhaps; it may reveal that Trump has ethical shortcomings like Hillary. So round one is a draw. Let's go to round two: How many people died as a result of Trump's ethical shortcomings compared to Hillary's?
Like Todd, @12:20 above, I am laser-focused on a Hillary loss; Trump detractors will need to do better than this to change my trajectory.
Blogger Michael K said...
"My "La Raza Lawyer's Association" is not affiliated with National Council of La Raza. Different website, even."
So, a lawyer Association named La Raza is not oriented to Hispanic privilege ? What turnip truck dropped you off this morning?
I think you missed his sarcasm.
Lyle said...
How stupid does Paul Ryan look now?
Same as usual?
I will never vote for Trump for any office, Trump University was a fraud, and I hope Trump loses his case, even gets a criminal conviction out of it.
Even so, nothing he said about Curiel was ""the textbook definition of a racist comment.". ANY accusation of racism NECESSARILY concerns the race of the accused. Does that mean EVERY accusation of racism is racist, or is it only racist when a whitey does it?
Trump accused Curiel, not because he's of Mexican descent, but because he belongs to a group called LA RAZA, the name of which opens itself to charges of RACISMO. If Trump belonged to a group called Das Volk would anyone bother to ask if it was racist?
Tushnet and his kind are right - the law is all about power, outcomes reflect almost perfectly the actual political balance (numbers x money), on anything that matters (the weak fighting each other over piddly things often get "justice", just to keep things orderly), and anything else is just ritual.
If you're a statist, you're not wise . . . Latina or other wise. In fact, trusting in Big Brother at this stage of human history is pretty much a sure sign of stupidity. But bringing up Sotomayor was interesting to me because when I read about Trump's remark about the judge, I thought (and I am not a Trump fan although he seems infinitely preferable to Crazy Trotskyite Uncle or the Alinskyite Witch), "Isn't this just the slip side of the 'wise Latina' remark?"
A little off-topic, maybe, BUT:
1. Is there an American culture?
2. If yes, shouldn't we try to defend it?
If people want to move here, for whatever reason, they should leave behind their 'national heritage' and adopt ours. Otherwise, they should stay home
"If people want to move here, for whatever reason, they should leave behind their 'national heritage' and adopt ours."
There is more than one American "national heritage", or rather cultural model, to adopt.
Lets take Mexicans in SoCal.
They are given several choices -
1. - The white middle class/ethnic European/Midwestern/suburban model - i.e., the "American" you are thinking of. Some, a minority, are close enough to this to adopt it.
2. - The black ghetto culture, LA style. These are or were their neighbors, their immediate rivals, and for most their style leaders.
3. - The academic/hipster/leftwing intellectual outlook of their mainly white teachers, administrators and the social workers, etc. they have so much to do with.
They certainly are "adopting ours", or rather yours, but not the one you think they should. Most are much closer to 2, above, with very strong influence from 3.
"So, a lawyer Association named La Raza is not oriented to Hispanic privilege ? What turnip truck dropped you off this morning?
I think you missed his sarcasm."
I guess I did but I don't think I was the only one.
I always thought Sotomayor was loco when she made these comments, and I would have voted against her unless she cravenly retracted them and apologized to all America.
As it is, Trump is throwing these sentiments back in the teeth of the tribalists on the left, but in a way that has muddled the message a bit because of his personal interest in the litigation.
Ryan is right about Trump's comments, but Trump's sentiments are another take on the same claptrap we have been hearing from the activists on the left for a generation.
Heaven help us.
Of course there are myriad subcultures in the US but I think that there is an overarching American culture, as well. What I hate to see is the waving of foreign flags and the burning of ours. What are these people doing here??? The ethnic identity thing can/will tear a nation apart.
A college swimmer was handled with kid gloves after the judge got a few letters from mom and dad.
Here is the headline, "Stanford rapist's friends and relatives wrote to persuade judge to keep him out of prison"
Seems like living with an immigrant mom and dad for 18 years would have a little more impact than a few letters..
"How stupid does Paul Ryan look now? "
When that clip is in a Hillary ad he'll look even worse. Or..I guess he thinks he's just trying to preserve a future run for himself.
The "American Culture" included lots of immigrants and their cultures but they had all adopted the Bourgeois striving for success and self improvement. My closest friend in medical school was the son of Mexican immigrant parents. His mother never learned English and made her own tortillas. His father ran his own wrought iron business in East LA.
He had 10 siblings. The oldest had been killed in an industrial accident. The other nine, including my friend, all had not only college degrees but most had graduate degrees.
My first wife taught school in East LA when I was a medical student. She learned quickly that she had to be careful what she said to parents because, if she said anything suggesting the kid was not studying or doing his school work, he would come to school the next day with bruises. The parents wanted the kids to succeed and to get into the Anglo culture that the activists so deride.
My high school girlfriend was Polish ethnicity and her grand other did not speak English and did not like her having a non-Polish boyfriend but she went to Purdue and graduated with a degree in Chemical Engineering.
Today, we see contempt for the Bourgeois values that are now considered "white."
I work with a few black military and civilian staff including several black doctors. I was explaining the evolution of white skin to one of them last week and he told me yesterday he is buying copies of "The 10,000 Year Explosion" for several family members. Most of the black doctors I know or have met are the children of black professionals. Mostly doctors, too.
I wonder if that will continue or if the children of prosperous blacks, like the idiot at Missouri with the hunger strike, will go off on the BLM fantasy trip. This generation is in real danger.
I figured with the racialist left going off the deep end by making everything about race (e.g., Sotomayor's "race matters" crap) it would be a good opportunity for the right to regain the majority by rejecting this as un-American and vile. Let the Left decide that everyone's race and sub-group defines them, and inject race into everything where it doesn't belong.
Now with Trump (and his unquestioning defenders) deciding that a better strategy is to embrace that very racialism, we're supposed to get on board? Forget that!
Unknown,
"Give Mexico back to the original Mexicans, then we can talk."
Do you really feel that with your whole heart?
This is all bullshit over nothing. Here's what will make Judge Curiel disinclined to to give Trump the benefit of the doubt: the judge was a hard-ass federal prosecutor who used the richness of his experiences to prosecute Mexican mobsters who were infiltrating the U.S. He survived death threats. I think this will roll right off his back. But most Feds, and people who grow up in poor neighborhoods and go into law enforcement, despise scam artists who prey on the weak. If it's illegitimate for a Hispanic judge affiliated with a pro-Hispanic political organization to judge the totally unrelated commercial fraud case of a defendant who happens to be a somewhat vocal, arguably anti-Hispanic politician, wouldn't it be worse to have any judge who was a hard-bitten prosecutor judging anyone accused of being a predatory sleaze?
"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”...
... Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.” She added, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”
She also approvingly quoted several law professors who said that “to judge is an exercise of power” and that “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,” she said."
Yup. So if liberal judges say that their culture will influence their rulings why shouldn't someone like Trump assume that a liberal judges culture might influence their ruling?
That's exactly the point.
Trump should add, "LEFTY' to his equation when he accuses this judge of bias. Because conservative judges don't do that.
This is why the left views Clarence Thomas as a "Traitor" beucase he's SUPPOSED to come to the right conclusion and that conclusion is SUPPOSED To favor things that would benefit black people (as per the left). The fact that he doesn't come to that standard means he's a traitor to his race.
If you are a lefty justice, especially one who works to do things to legitimize illegal immigration I dont see why I should assume you don't have a bias. OF COURSE YOU DO. YOU"RE A LEFTY JUDGE. thats a feature, not a bug.
brando wrote:
Now with Trump (and his unquestioning defenders) deciding that a better strategy is to embrace that very racialism, we're supposed to get on board? Forget that!
Repubs SHOULD be pointing out the inherent bias of lefty judges specificaly becuase they have a standard that favors social justice over racial blindness. They DO do this. Trump may in fact stumbled into the perfect criticism of left justices. Use that bias against them, by pointing out that it is a bias.
He's so dumb he wont get the nuance, but his handlers should really read this and make him memorize it:
http://journalofamericangreatness.blogspot.com/2016/06/trump-and-judge.html
"Here's what will make Judge Curiel disinclined to to give Trump the benefit of the doubt: the judge was a hard-ass federal prosecutor who used the richness of his experiences to prosecute Mexican mobsters who were infiltrating the U.S. He survived death threats."
Be that as it may, I have yet to see any reason why this judge cannot give a fair hearing in this matter. If Trump had anything, he would have filed for recusal, or at the very least brought up something better than "he's Mexican". The fact that his supporters aren't right now saying "ok, this is pretty stupid" and instead trying to twist his latest idiocy into some secret brilliance is just par for the course.
"So if liberal judges say that their culture will influence their rulings why shouldn't someone like Trump assume that a liberal judges culture might influence their ruling?"
Has Judge Curiel said this? And if he did, why did Trump not simply point to such statements by the judge?
If his complaint was "this judge has made public statements critical of me before he got this case, so he is biased" he'd have an argument there. But he didn't, instead he decided that while his own proposals are in no way racist and he's totally going to win the Hispanic vote, this judge however is going to be biased against him because he's Mexican.
Let's stop twisting this around and consider the most likely conclusion. Trump thinks he may lose this case, and wants to call the judge biased ahead of time so his supporters will think it was rigged against him. It's not exactly a departure from his usual m.o.
I'm with Brando on this one.
I seem to recall, back when the Boy Scouts of America still banned gay scout leaders, that judges who were serving on local Boy Scout councils or boards of directors were resigning their memberships so as to "avoid the appearance of impropriety". Many of them did so because they were, or would have been, hounded to do so by the "mob" mentality of the left and the media (but I repeat myself).
So where is the same push to resign from all these LaRaza organizations and Native American Law Professor groups in order to "avoid the appearance of impropriety"?
Oh, right, no impropriety if the group caters to POC, Women, LGBTQWERTY, or other "special groups".
"It's not exactly a departure from his usual m.o."
Yep. That reflexive Trump trait of attacking the enemies credibility to deflect from the central issue. Granted..works a bit better in this case.
so for example, why is Clarence Thomas an uncle Tom?
http://urbanintellectuals.com/2014/05/15/scotus-thomas/
Because he doesn't support affirmative action. To the left, being black, he NEEDS to support affirmative action or he is a traitor to his race. So, there's an assumption there that any black judge who doesn't want to be called a race traitor needs to toe the line and also support affirmative action. That is the "correct" result for a liberal black justice or judge. most liberal black judges are also supporters of affirmative action.
The same then would be true for a Mexican judge who works with illegal immigrants. There is absolutely no hint of bias? That's laughable on his face.
Trump is right to say this judge might be biased.
If this were a black person working to end segregation and was being sued and the judge belonged to a white organization that stressed race, or worked with white supremacy groups, you can bet that him being white would show a bias. What person wouldn't assume that? even if the case had nothing to do with race in and of itself.
The left seems to think, though, that it's racial biases are peach keeny. pouting out how your ethnicity colors your judgements is actually virtuous. REALLY?
But also, pointing out that there is a bias is racist. How dare you assume that a mexican would have a bias simply because he's a mexican!!! I'd certainly assume SOtoymayor might have a bias based on her race. Because she told me outright.
If I were Trump I'd clarify and say he's not biased SIMPLY because hes a mexican. but because he's a lefty who is mexican judge and is therefore engaged (NECESSARILY lest he be viewed as a race traitor) in racial identity politics. THAT judge, who happens to be Mexican, MIGHT in fact be biased.
Brando wrote:
Has Judge Curiel said this? And if he did, why did Trump not simply point to such statements by the judge?
He's a lefty judge therefore I assume this. If he isn't called a race traitor by his fellow mexicans he's probably toeing the line. as othewise, the left woudl be attacking him the way they do Clarence Thomas. I'll bet money on this.
But I also know that he is directly involved in giving scholarships to illegals. So his activity deals directly with facilitating amnesty or bypassing immigration laws.
Brando said...
I figured with the racialist left going off the deep end by making everything about race (e.g., Sotomayor's "race matters" crap) it would be a good opportunity for the right to regain the majority by rejecting this as un-American and vile.
Right. We can believe in this strategy because it has worked so well so far.
You seem to believe anyone noting Trump's comments are not racist by the left's standards is inherently supporting that standard. This is false. Instead many are delegitimizing that standard - for everyone. This is the time to show everyone how their standards work. It's not about Trump so your returning to focus on him misses the opportunity.
The Spanish are famous for their Inquisition skill. It was a well run operation that rewarded the Hispanic Raza of the day for turning in any suspected thought criminals for torture and murder...or just a rich neighbor.
It so happened that the tortured to slow deaths dead men's property was always confiscated and distributed in shares among the secret accusers and the torturers, and the Clerics in charge, and the King himself.
Judge Curiel would probably really appreciate the part where ransoms of immense money were accepted as back channel payments to release an accused innocent man. But then they were tortured to death, and their property distributed as usual anyway. After all it was wrong to take bribes...and the Spanish guys doing this were all Honorable and Righteous Men of High Reputation. So they kept the bribes.
Trump thinks he may lose this case, and wants to call the judge biased ahead of time so his supporters will think it was rigged against him. It's not exactly a departure from his usual m.o.
Those who hate Trump will, of course, find justification in this story and Trump was clumsy in making his point. However, The concept of unbiased courts and real justice has been losing ground. This will resonate with people who see unfairness as a common event these days.
I read Conrad Black's book about his legal ordeal and see how it is very unlikely that Trump, as a rich man accused by loser investors, can get a fair trial even without the judge being a Hillary supporter.
Remember how Bank of America was coerced into buying Countrywide, which was going BK, then was fined $25 billion for Countrywide's sins. Of course a big piece of that "fine" went to left wing organizations that back Obama and Hillary.
Trump accused Curiel, not because he's of Mexican descent, but because he belongs to a group called LA RAZA, the name of which opens itself to charges of RACISMO.
Trump's initial attack on the judge did not mention La Raza. Trump said, falsely, "He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico." Curiel was born in the US to Mexican immigrant parents.
The information about La Raza came out after Trump's early interviews, and even that connection is questionable. Curiel is not a member of the controversial, 50-year-old La Raza organization also known as the "National Council of La Raza" or NCLR. He belongs to a separate, unaffiliated organization with a similar sounding name: "La Raza Lawyers of San Diego."
The question should be whether the judge has any kind of history of bias in his rulings. I have heard nothing on this score. In his actions, Trump reminds me of the Clinton administration and their attacks on Judge Kenneth Starr. Although Starr's prior reputation was unimpeachable, the Clintons could see that Starr was going to follow the law and that their best political defense was to undermine his credibility due to his prior affiliations. So it is now with Trump.
Also, if some Democrats are hypocrites for previously saying that one's cultural background should affect rulings, Trump defenders are guilty of something, too, for assuming a judge cannot rule fairly based on his heritage.
This wouldn't be an issue if not for government, institutional, and [civil rights] businesses that indulge and exploit [class] diversity schemes. This wouldn't be an issue if not for mass emigration and especially illegal immigration from second and third-world nations that is protected and promoted by the former, both domestic and foreign. The State-establishment of a Pro-choice religion (i.e. "Church") including [class] diversity policies has invited scrutiny of these various groups, which has accelerated through progressive wars, opportunistic regime changes, mass emigration, abortion rites, and other anti-native policies. Until this changes, it is all suspect, and the focus will always shift to these policies.
As for real and circumstantial fraud and debt-laden businesses and institutions, people are more than a little cynical in a period of widespread fraud and debt-laden businesses, institutions, and governments, too.
Writ Small said...
Also, if some Democrats are hypocrites for previously saying that one's cultural background should affect rulings, Trump defenders are guilty of something, too, for assuming a judge cannot rule fairly based on his heritage.
I have seen no Trump supporter make this claim.
"He belongs to a separate, unaffiliated organization with a similar sounding name: "La Raza Lawyers of San Diego."
So, it's a bridge group ?
Come on.
Curiel is not a member of the controversial, 50-year-old La Raza organization also known as the "National Council of La Raza" or NCLR. He belongs to a separate, unaffiliated organization with a similar sounding name: "La Raza Lawyers of San Diego."
Curiel is not a member of the controversial, 100 year old Nazi party also known as National Socialists. He belongs to a separate, u affiliated organization with a similar sounding name: Nazi Lawyers of San Diego."
How anyone can write this with a straight face is beyond me.
" it is very unlikely that Trump, as a rich man accused by loser investors, can get a fair trial "
Ah..poor Trump. Poor loser investors.
Brando giving lefty judges who are obviously political the benefit of the doubt is the reason for Trumps rise. We have too many on the right who think like Brando. The snake could be rattling it's tail in the grass and Brando would find a reason to explain why the snake won't bite and we should just keep walking right past.
Blogger walter said...
" it is very unlikely that Trump, as a rich man accused by loser investors, can get a fair trial "
Ah..poor Trump. Poor loser investors
When the rule of law breaks down, it's all of us that suffer.
Let's hope you get to go first.
The Post-modern prepares the way back to the the Pre-modern. Once we deconstruct law from some neutral principle of justice into a raw exercise of power, the pre-modern principles of tribalism are reintroduced. One might accept that law can be neutrally applied in intra-tribal disputes, at least by a judge who is a member of the tribe.
But one assumes that a judge who is a member of a different tribe will usually decide in favor of his or her own tribe as against an outsider. (The narrative of White Privilege is, among other things, a justification for a Black or Latina judge to apply such a tribal form of justice in particular cases, racial payback so to speak.) Ironically, of course, a good deal of the comparative prosperity that draws immigrants from tribal societies to the US is made possible by the high trust/long investment horizons that a neutral system of justice permits. But apparently, such a legal system (like math and science) is just a White Man's power play, and wiser (Latina) heads will prevail, returning us to the tribal justice that has served Africa and the Middle East so well through the ages.
There are even cracks with the Trump-boot lickers at Breitbart on this one.
Trump's less concerned about "rule of law" than he is about Trump. Big fan of it if he can use it to get his way. When it's leaning back on him, has to sling the shit.
The focus is not on underperforming and debt-laden universities, colleges, and schools, but on special and peculiar interests (e.g. "minority") throughout government, institutions, and [civil rights] businesses.
This is a trial of the State-established Pro-choice Church, anti-native factions, and Democrat Party. As well as overlapping and convergent interests in the Republican, Libertarian, etc. parties.
"Ah..poor Trump. Poor loser investors
When the rule of law breaks down, it's all of us that suffer.
Let's hope you get to go first."
Yes. Right after the cops go to prison, I hope they save you some room.
If I had signed for such a "course" I would be ashamed to complain.
Scott Adams who has been remarkably correct about Trump’s success has a new blog post our about The Robot Judge.
“Curiel looks human on the outside, and he has passed as human for decades. But Cooper made it clear in his interviews yesterday that while science understands that 100% of humans are biased about just about everything, this robot judge is not susceptible to being influenced by his life experiences. It sounds deeply implausible, but no one on CNN challenged Cooper’s implication that Judge Curiel is the only bias-free entity in the universe. Ergo, he must be a robot.”
So the opposition is unlimbering the big guns: Trump’s a racist! Sure, the judge belongs to La Raza Lawyers Association, not the racist La Raza that wants the southwest US returned to Mexico … although it lists the racist La Raza as part of its “community.” Curiel’s group is just a group that boycotts Trump’s products and companies.
Here’s a thought experiment: imagine a “KKK Lawyers of California” --not the same detestable KKK, simply an association of white lawyers. Good to go? Want to have your case heard by them, black man?
@Writ Small
Whether Trump knew about Curiel's affiliation with La Raza or not, he thought he was biased against him. Turns out, now that we know about his membership in La Raza, Trump was probably right.
The question should be whether the judge has any kind of history of bias in his rulings. I have heard nothing on this score.
Trump claims that out of a population of 10,000 attendees over 98% approved of the courses they took – including 3 of the plaintiffs. If true, it would seem to me that Trump has a good case going into the trial.
A couple of questions of my own:
Readers, have you noticed that the MSM/Democrats/eGOP/neverTrumpsters in their offhand labeling of Trump as a racist because of his remarks about Curiel NEVER offer any actual quotes of Trump’s “racist” remarks? Now … what could be the reason for that?
Moneyrunners: I am "KKK Lawyers of California" My Dartmouth fraternity was Kappa Kappa Kappa, founded 1842 long before those upstarts. I have been a member of the the California Bar since 1981.
Is there an Gringo Lawyers of San Diego?
How about Anglo-Whitey Lawyers of San Diego?
She's just saying she's lived a richer and fuller life and comes to better decisions because of it.
I don't know what the hell you're trying to say, white lady.
I imagine most of America doesn't, either.
Sotomayor is a racist.
Writ Small said...
Also, if some Democrats are hypocrites for previously saying that one's cultural background should affect rulings, Trump defenders are guilty of something, too, for assuming a judge cannot rule fairly based on his heritage.
Trump has not said that the judge cannot rule fairly based on his heritage; he has said the judge has not ruled fairly in his case and he (Trump) assumes this and the judges other activities related to La Raza is because of his heritage.
Big difference.
TomHynes said...Moneyrunners: I am "KKK Lawyers of California" My Dartmouth fraternity was Kappa Kappa Kappa, founded 1842 long before those upstarts. I have been a member of the the California Bar since 1981.
That's a cute but irrelevant anecdote. Your KKK stands for Kappa Kappa Kappa; the other for Ku Kluz Klan.
Racial pride, ethnic pride, gay pride, feminism. Everyone is encouraged to exhibit and embrace pride in identity [except white folks, of course]. "Pride goeth before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall." [Proverbs 16:18] Pride is intrinsically bad, so why do we celebrate it?
the judge has not ruled fairly in his case
Something changed since the announcement of pro-native and national responsibility positions that exposed a conflict of interest. The anti-native factions seem bent by the possibility of an American administration that will hold domestic and foreign interests accountable for conditions that underlie mass exodus (e.g. refugee crises) from second and third-world nations.
Then there are the underperforming and debt-laden public universities, colleges, and especially compulsory grade schools. This is Fannie and Freddie territory all over again, which explains the Democrat interests, as well as other overlapping and convergent interests.
Rhythm and Balls said...
She's just saying she's lived a richer and fuller life and comes to better decisions because of it.
--
More accurately:
She's just saying she's lived a richer and fuller life than whites and comes to better decisions because of it.
Racist
Of course the "richness of her experiences" also has the potential to make her TOO close to an issue to judge properly. It's the same with everyone. But she wants only the potential positive to be recognized. That in itself is the sign of a biased mentality.
Post a Comment