Trump!!!

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Seattle Husker]

Two different questions. One asked about proliferation of nuclear weapons and one asked about spending American dollars defending Japan and South Korea. However, keep up with the Rachel Maddow narrative.

Can you post the questions because I'm too lazy to look them up to verify. On the other hand, if the answer and outcome is the same does it matter what the question was? Trump clearly stated that Korea and Japan should have their own nuclear weapons (Saudi Arabia too..."it's inevitable") then called Hillary a liar for saying that's what he said. You stated it's taken out of context and it was a "liberal talking point" to which I showed Fox News saying the same thing. This may be a situation where you don't like Trump's answer. It's ok to admit it. Heck, McConnell and Ryan just stopped short of saying Trump's attack on Curiel is racist.

 

[Seattle Husker]

So, Trump continues to use his bully pulpit to attack Gonzalo Curiel, the Hispanic ancestry American judge presiding over the 2 Class Action lawsuits for Trump University. Donald has gone on to say that a Muslim judge would be equally as conflicted in any case he's involved with. It should be noted, his lawyers have not filed any motions requesting the judge to recuse himself.

What are the thoughts of the lawyers on this board? Bigotry? Racism? Fair play by Trump?

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Mr. Deez]

So, Trump continues to use his bully pulpit to attack Gonzalo Curiel, the Hispanic ancestry American judge presiding over the 2 Class Action lawsuits for Trump University. Donald has gone on to say that a Muslim judge would be equally as conflicted in any case he's involved with. It should be noted, his lawyers have not filed any motions requesting the judge to recuse himself.

What are the thoughts of the lawyers on this board? Bigotry? Racism? Fair play by Trump?

He can say whatever he wants about the judge, as stupid as it may be from the standpoint of his campaign and his case. However, though I'll admit that I don't know enough about Trump's case to say whether Judge made the right rulings, I haven't heard anyone say they were blatantly wrong - certainly not wrong enough to suggest bias. True, he's ethnically Hispanic, but the idea that a judge's ethnicity by itself suggests bias is too absurd to warrant serious discussion. Could a judge be biased by his politics? Of course, but like I mentioned earlier, I haven't seen any indication that Judge Curiel's rulings were unfair or suggested bias.

 

[theiioftx]

Can you post the questions because I'm too lazy to look them up to verify. On the other hand, if the answer and outcome is the same does it matter what the question was? Trump clearly stated that Korea and Japan should have their own nuclear weapons (Saudi Arabia too..."it's inevitable") then called Hillary a liar for saying that's what he said. You stated it's taken out of context and it was a "liberal talking point" to which I showed Fox News saying the same thing. This may be a situation where you don't like Trump's answer. It's ok to admit it. Heck, McConnell and Ryan just stopped short of saying Trump's attack on Curiel is racist.

As usual, lazy liberal wants someone else to work for them

The context was Trump's position that NATO members pay up for the US providing their defense. Obviously, North Korea is a nuclear threat. They asked Trump what should Japan do if the US stops defending them. He said defend themselves however they needed to. When pressed about how or if with nukes, he said "yes."

Although only in a few cases, I agree with Trump on countries paying their own cost of defense. If they know we will do it, why would they pay for it themselves?

In the case of the judge, Trump demonstrates why I cannot vote for him.

 

[Horn6721]

Trump doesn't think before he speaks and often says really stupid things.
Since this lawyer is a member of the LaRaza (The Race and they don't mean American*) lawyer's association perhaps an argument could be made that there is a conflict.

* I know American is not a race but neither is Hispanic or Latino

 

[Joe Fan]

....What are the thoughts of the lawyers on this board? Bigotry? Racism? Fair play by Trump?

If you are looking for a signal or a sign that maybe the judge is biased against Trump, then the fact that he has not kicked the entire schedule until after the election. This is what I would have done if I had been the judge. And at least one former US Attorney General agrees http://lawnewz.com/politics/mexican...ys-trumps-criticism-of-mexican-judge-is-fair/

Trump, as a private litigant, has the right to complain about a judge he reasonably believes is biased against him. Here, Trump is not making his case solely based upon ethnicity (despite what the media keeps saying). He is making the case against membership in a group. This is not to say judges cannot join groups (the 1st A demands the must be allowed to do so). But it is to say that, while you may join whatever group you like, you also need to recuse yourself when necessary. Keep in mind that judicial recusal is about avoiding not only impropriety but the appearance of impropriety.

I say that any judge whose impartiality can reasonably be questioned for any reason whatsoever has a duty to recuse. It happens it all the time in cases, and for much less reason than this. I have had it happen just because the judge personally knew someone, even just socially. And I have had unsolicited offers from judges to recuse themselves because they knew the other attorney, or even just the partners at the law firm (I never accepted -- as the lawyer, you want to avoid this). This is what good judges do. And there are plenty of other federal judges in San Diego, you will not run out.

Here are some examples, see what you think --
-- what if you are suing the Boy Scouts over gay rights and the judge is a huge Boy Scouts supporter?
-- what if you are female and suing your boss or company for sexual harassment, would you want Bill Clinton or Bill Cosby to be your judge?
-- what about a judge in the NAACP is a case involving a Klansman?
-- what about a judge in the KKK involving an NAACP member? Or, imagine an Obama case overseen by a former KKK member judge? (dont LOL, one became a US Senator)
-- what if some random black person sued you, would you be OK if the judge was once a member of the Black Panthers?
-- what if you were a black plaintiff, how would feel about a judge on your case who belonged to a whites-only country club?
-- the original gay marriage case in Calif was heard by a gay judge -- should he have continued with it? (clearly not, but he did anyway)

Did you even know the Supreme Court just made a ruling about race in a case? Despite the fact that this is 2016, the SCOTUS reversed a murder conviction of a black defendant because the jury was all white. Can you believe that? (the sole dissenter was Thomas btw) http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...black-death-row-inmate-convicted-by-all-white

In the Trump case, the judge belongs to the La Raza Lawyers Association. Some people have tried to distinguish this from La Raza. But isn't this like trying to peel off the KKK Lawyers Association from the KKK? (or even the Republican National Lawyers Association from the Republican Party). This is not simply the "Latino Bar Association." La Raza advocates secession of the Southwest US followed by ethnic cleansing of non-Hispanicsis. (some say they are the Mexican version of the KKK). Personally, I am not sure they should be treated any differently than Soviet spies, an invading army or a terrorist group.

Anyway, to the point, Trump's fear is that this judge - who is an obvious political opponent - will use this case to injure him politically. Trump is basically the biggest political opponent of La Raza on the planet at this point in history. In this light, does his concern here not seem legitimate? The question is, could a reasonable person think a judge in La Raza would be biased against Donald Trump? I say yes.


ps -- By the way, Trump's sister is a federal judge. He has long advocated for judicial reform.
ps2 - The La Raza Lawyers Association is formally affiliated with National Council of La Raza http://larazalawyers.net/id3.html
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkOfdgkVEAAjLEa.jpg
ps3 -- this judge also served on a La Raza scholarship board and awarded scholarships to illegal immigrants.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Judge Sotomayer opined that the SCOTUS could benefit from the life experience of a "wise Latina". Rodney King's defenders said very loudly that he was getting screwed b/c the jury did not contain enough blacks (even tho RK was not the defendant). We've been told for 30+ years that race absolutely DOES matter when it comes to the judicial system, why is this any different?

 

[Joe Fan]

A little more -- The Judge we are talking about here, Gonzalo Curiel, once worked together with San Jose Mayor Liccardo. And they remain buddies.

And with regard to the events in San Jose but not the lawsuit, the San Jose Police Chief is also affiliated with La Raza

 

[Seattle Husker]

As usual, lazy liberal wants someone else to work for them

Whoa..I was giving you an out because you said it was taken out of context. You went right to the insult? [sigh]

The context was Trump's position that NATO members pay up for the US providing their defense. Obviously, North Korea is a nuclear threat. They asked Trump what should Japan do if the US stops defending them. He said defend themselves however they needed to. When pressed about how or if with nukes, he said "yes."

So then you agree with Hillary's statement that Trump is in favor of Japan and South Korea having their own nukes then? It would be to defend themselves. What again did HRC take out of context again?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Trump doesn't think before he speaks and often says really stupid things.
Since this lawyer is a member of the LaRaza (The Race and they don't mean American*) lawyer's association perhaps an argument could be made that there is a conflict.

* I know American is not a race but neither is Hispanic or Latino

With that argument, does a Catholic judge have a "conflict of interest" in a birth control access case?

 

[Mr. Deez]

If you are looking for a signal or a sign that maybe the judge is biased against Trump, then the fact that he has not kicked the entire schedule until after the election.

So the plaintiffs should have their day in court delayed by a year because the alleged wrongdoer decided to run for President? Ridiculous.

Trump, as a private litigant, has the right to complain about a judge he reasonably believes is biased against him.

He can complain. That doesn't make it a smart idea.

Here, Trump is not making his case solely based upon ethnicity (despite what the media keeps saying). He is making the case against membership in a group. This is not to say judges cannot join groups (the 1st A demands the must be allowed to do so). But it is to say that, while you may join whatever group you like, you also need to recuse yourself when necessary. Keep in mind that judicial recusal is about avoiding not only impropriety but the appearance of impropriety.

True, it's not the sole basis for his complaint, but as usual, he gave plenty of ammo to make the racial/ethnic issue center stage. Also, if he wants to make the case that the judge is biased, there's a legitimate way to do that. It's not making public speeches in which you call the judge a hater and a Mexican in a derogatory manner.

Did you even know the Supreme Court just made a ruling about race in a case? Despite the fact that this is 2016, the SCOTUS reversed a murder conviction of a black defendant because the jury was all white. Can you believe that? (the sole dissenter was Thomas btw)

No, they didn't. They threw it out because the prosecution engaged in racial discrimination in deciding whom they wanted stricken in order to make an all-white jury.

 

[Joe Fan]

With that argument, does a Catholic judge have a "conflict of interest" in a birth control access case?

Abortion is settled law

 

[Joe Fan]

So the plaintiffs should have their day in court delayed by a year because the alleged wrongdoer decided to run for President? Ridiculous.

If this were a criminal case, it could not be delayed. But it's not. Occasionally, the fate of the nation intervenes. Sorry Millennials!

I think this case either gets delayed or its gets a different judge. Maybe both. The other judges in this district are not loving this attention. Time will tell if this is reedickaluss, or not

 

[Horn6721]

If the Catholic judge is a member of a avowed pro abortion anti pro life group yes

 

[Seattle Husker]

If you are looking for a signal or a sign that maybe the judge is biased against Trump, then the fact that he has not kicked the entire schedule until after the election. This is what I would have done if I had been the judge. And at least one former US Attorney General agrees http://lawnewz.com/politics/mexican...ys-trumps-criticism-of-mexican-judge-is-fair/

Trump, as a private litigant, has the right to complain about a judge he reasonably believes is biased against him. Here, Trump is not making his case solely based upon ethnicity (despite what the media keeps saying). He is making the case against membership in a group. This is not to say judges cannot join groups (the 1st A demands the must be allowed to do so). But it is to say that, while you may join whatever group you like, you also need to recuse yourself when necessary. Keep in mind that judicial recusal is about avoiding not only impropriety but the appearance of impropriety.

I say that any judge whose impartiality can reasonably be questioned for any reason whatsoever has a duty to recuse. It happens it all the time in cases, and for much less reason than this. I have had it happen just because the judge personally knew someone, even just socially. And I have had unsolicited offers from judges to recuse themselves because they knew the other attorney, or even just the partners at the law firm (I never accepted -- as the lawyer, you want to avoid this). This is what good judges do. And there are plenty of other federal judges in San Diego, you will not run out.

Here are some examples, see what you think --
-- what if you are suing the Boy Scouts over gay rights and the judge is a huge Boy Scouts supporter?
-- what if you are female and suing your boss or company for sexual harassment, would you want Bill Clinton or Bill Cosby to be your judge?
-- what about a judge in the NAACP is a case involving a Klansman?
-- what about a judge in the KKK involving an NAACP member? Or, imagine an Obama case overseen by a former KKK member judge? (dont LOL, one became a US Senator)
-- what if some random black person sued you, would you be OK if the judge was once a member of the Black Panthers?
-- what if you were a black plaintiff, how would feel about a judge on your case who belonged to a whites-only country club?
-- the original gay marriage case in Calif was heard by a gay judge -- should he have continued with it? (clearly not, but he did anyway)

Did you even know the Supreme Court just made a ruling about race in a case? Despite the fact that this is 2016, the SCOTUS reversed a murder conviction of a black defendant because the jury was all white. Can you believe that? (the sole dissenter was Thomas btw) http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...black-death-row-inmate-convicted-by-all-white

In the Trump case, the judge belongs to the La Raza Lawyers Association. Some people have tried to distinguish this from La Raza. But isn't this like trying to peel off the KKK Lawyers Association from the KKK? (or even the Republican National Lawyers Association from the Republican Party). This is not simply the "Latino Bar Association." La Raza advocates secession of the Southwest US followed by ethnic cleansing of non-Hispanicsis. (some say they are the Mexican version of the KKK). Personally, I am not sure they should be treated any differently than Soviet spies, an invading army or a terrorist group.

Anyway, to the point, Trump's fear is that this judge - who is an obvious political opponent - will use this case to injure him politically. Trump is basically the biggest political opponent of La Raza on the planet at this point in history. In this light, does his concern here not seem legitimate? The question is, could a reasonable person think a judge in La Raza would be biased against Donald Trump? I say yes.


ps -- By the way, Trump's sister is a federal judge. He has long advocated for judicial reform.
ps2 - The La Raza Lawyers Association is formally affiliated with National Council of La Raza http://larazalawyers.net/id3.html
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkOfdgkVEAAjLEa.jpg
ps3 -- this judge also served on a La Raza scholarship board and awarded scholarships to illegal immigrants.

Thanks for the viewpoint, Joe. Is there a reason that Trump's lawyers haven't requested his recusal? At least one political show commentator claimed that lawyers need evidence of bias to exist to request recusal. Is that your understanding? It was also mentioned (NPR maybe?) that it's generally poor form to make requests for recusal without evidence of bias and can lead to formal discipline of the lawyer. Is that true? It was used as the reason Trump's lawyers haven't filed a request for recusal.

I'll pose the same question to you, if a judge is Catholic, let's say a deacon in his church, should he have to recuse himself from cases related to birth control?

 

[Seattle Husker]

If the Catholic judge is a member of a avowed pro abortion anti proliferation group yes

What does that mean? That Roman Catholic Church is the foremost organization against birth control. I'm hearing that simply being a member of La Raza legal is reason enough to demand recusal. Wouldn't being a member of the Roma Catholic Church fall under the same logic?

 

[Seattle Husker]

No, they didn't. They threw it out because the prosecution engaged in racial discrimination in deciding whom they wanted stricken in order to make an all-white jury.

I read that ample evidence existed that the prosecution purposely worked to exclude minorities from the jury. The verdict of the case was overturned so the defendant will get a new trial.

 

[NJlonghorn]

ps2 - The La Raza Lawyers Association is formally affiliated with National Council of La Raza http://larazalawyers.net/id3.html

Joe Fan, your willingness to make up facts is downright Trumpian.

At the top of the page that you link to, the La Raza Lawyers Association website provides "links and affiliates" to other Hispanic bar associations in California. There is then a notation that "other Latino organizations and links" are listed below. When you scroll down to the bottom, one of the six links is to the National Council of La Raza. There is no suggestion that any of the linked organizations is "affiliated" with the lawyers group.

More definitively, the NCLR website provides a list of affiliated organizations. The La Raza Lawyers Association is not listed.

 

[Mr. Deez]

If this were a criminal case, it could not be delayed. But it's not. Occasionally, the fate of the nation intervenes. Sorry Millennials!

B.S. The fate of the nation doesn't rise and fall over whether a presidential candidate has to stand for trial like any other American. Bill Clinton tried the "I'm too important and the country needs me too much to stand trial" argument, and the Supreme Court wiped their *** with it. And his argument was ten times as strong as Trump's, because he was actually the President at the time.

I think this case either gets delayed or its gets a different judge. Maybe both. The other judges in this district are not loving this attention. Time will tell if this is reedickaluss, or not

Actually those issues are totally unrelated.

 

[Clean]

Since Mitch McConnell and other "establishment" Repubs spent the weekend doing the Susan Rice talk show circuit to mitigate the perceived damage and to advise Trump to "walk back his statement", that clearly is a sign to me that Trump is right.

La Raza IS a racist organization, even Cesar Chavez said so. If the La Raza Lawyers Association is associated in any way, shape, or form (and why would you take its name if you weren't) Trump just might be right. In any event, Trump may be the only white guy in the country with the cojones to stand up to the PC crazies.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Trump may be the only white guy in the country with the cojones to stand up to the PC crazies.

He's gonna get a lot of votes just for this reason, alone.

 

[Seattle Husker]

He's gonna get a lot of votes just for this reason, alone.

The white man's last stand?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Since Mitch McConnell and other "establishment" Repubs spent the weekend doing the Susan Rice talk show circuit to mitigate the perceived damage and to advise Trump to "walk back his statement", that clearly is a sign to me that Trump is right.

La Raza IS a racist organization, even Cesar Chavez said so. If the La Raza Lawyers Association is associated in any way, shape, or form (and why would you take its name if you weren't) Trump just might be right. In any event, Trump may be the only white guy in the country with the cojones to stand up to the PC crazies.

It doesn't matter if it's associated or not. Trump is counting on that type of justification.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I read that ample evidence existed that the prosecution purposely worked to exclude minorities from the jury. The verdict of the case was overturned so the defendant will get a new trial.

Yep, but I'll fill you in on something. Every courtroom lawyer does this to a point. We're not bad people, but we know two things. First, we'll never have time to question every venireman enough to know what their potential biases are, and we have to do the best we can with the time provided. Second, we know that the stereotypes exist for a reason. That means that if you're a criminal prosecutor and you're considering striking a black dude from the panel, you're going to assume that he thinks more like Cornel West than like Allen West. So you'll assume that he's more hostile to the police and more likely to believe that the cop got something wrong or is lying on the stand than a white guy is.

On the other end of the spectrum, when I was trying personal injury cases, do you think I wanted white guys (especially old white guys) on my jury? Generally, no. Does that mean I kicked every white guy I could off the jury? Of course not and every case is different, but if I was out of time in a run-of-the-mill case and had a strike to burn and had a choice between a 75 year old white dude who probably hates lawyers and personal injury plaintiffs or the black guy who probably doesn't, what am I going to do? True, the stereotypes might be wrong in my situation, but do I take that gamble for no reason other than a desire to be politically correct? No, I'm striking the white dude, and I'm probably striking him even if my client is a white dude.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Yep, but I'll fill you in on something. Every courtroom lawyer does this to a point. We're not bad people, but we know two things. First, we'll never have time to question every venireman enough to know what their potential biases are, and we have to do the best we can with the time provided. Second, we know that the stereotypes exist for a reason. That means that if you're a criminal prosecutor and you're considering striking a black dude from the panel, you're going to assume that he thinks more like Cornel West than like Allen West. So you'll assume that he's more hostile to the police and more likely to believe that the cop got something wrong or is lying on the stand than a white guy is.

On the other end of the spectrum, when I was trying personal injury cases, do you think I wanted white guys (especially old white guys) on my jury? Generally, no. Does that mean I kicked every white guy I could off the jury? Of course not and every case is different, but if I was out of time in a run-of-the-mill case and had a strike to burn and had a choice between a 75 year old white dude who probably hates lawyers and personal injury plaintiffs or the black guy who probably doesn't, what am I going to do? True, the stereotypes might be wrong in my situation, but do I take that gamble for no reason other than a desire to be politically correct? No, I'm striking the white dude, and I'm probably striking him even if my client is a white dude.

I understand that lawyers are trying to get the jury most conducive to the success of their client. Not knowing the facts of this case, it seems the Supreme Court felt the prosecutor crossed an ethical line in optimizing the jury for his success.

 

[theiioftx]

Whoa..I was giving you an out because you said it was taken out of context. You went right to the insult? [sigh]



So then you agree with Hillary's statement that Trump is in favor of Japan and South Korea having their own nukes then? It would be to defend themselves. What again did HRC take out of context again?

I could have sworn I put a smiley face behind the opening sentence. Must be the mobile device. Sorry if I offended you.

Trump was basically saying, 'pay for your defense or do it yourself.' If you choose the latter, your choice as to how since you are on your own. I doubt HRC wants to use the specifics of Japan, South Korea and North Korea as Slick was the reason North Korea has the nukes. Kind of like Obama setting up Iran the same way. By the way, notice how the liberal press glossed over the elimination of the press conference where they lied about secret negotiations with Iran?

Again, sorry if I violated your safe zone.

 

[theiioftx]

I heard today that the original plaintiff is not even part of the case anymore. Is this true? Does it matter from a legal standpoint? I know summary judgments are rarely granted, but something does seem wrong about a case proceeding without the plaintiff.