Ethnicity of a Judge Will Make a Difference In Our Judging

Of course they are baseless, which should be obvious as you state. But look at what he stirred up; here, and on national media. His own party is distancing itself. It's quite a show.

 

It is quite a show, but it is sad and bad for our country. We need strong parties on both sides for a two party system to work. Trump is the culmination of a party that has lost its leadership and is struggling for an identity. We need political reform in this country. Either the Republican party needs to reestablish itself or we need more political parties. The latter option would require many more political changes for it to work in the US.

 

The Republicans made the same mistakes with Obama that they did with Clinton, only more so. For the past eight years they haven't stood for anything. They spent two administrations opposing Obama's every move. That was their agenda. Losing the need to oppose Obama leaves a vacuous void. It's not surprising that a populist demagogue could seize power under such circumstances.

 

To compare him to Curiel he has to be. Curiel is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers a racially based group.

 

Wow. You guys are really mixed up. Curiel is irrelevant. We're talking about Sotomayor, nor Curiel.

 

You seem to be confused. I'm talking about judicial bias which includes both Curiel and Sotomayor.

 

Sotomayor, in her 2001 speech, declared that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.” She said her positions as a judge will be influenced by being a Latina. She said it, and she sits on the supreme court.


Sotomayor thinks "that one’s sex, race and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench." Not only did she say it loud, she was echoed throughout the press as if it were a wonderful thing to admit prejudice.

Why is it racist if she is taken at her word?

Please indicate where the OP mentions Curiel. Sotomayor is talking about race and ethnicity, hence Clarence Thomas. Why are you having such difficulty following this?

Everybody is taking Sotomayor's words, and transposing them onto Curiel - something he never said - in a lame attempt to support Trump. It's pathetic.

I'll ask you again. If Sotomayor is correct about all judges then don't you think Clarence Thomas follows this as well? Simple question. Either way you answer (as I already showed) crushes the OP.

 

You need to re-think your statement.

Justice, in this country, is blind.

A judge's decision must be based on FACTS and based on LAW, no matter how much it pains them to do it. They may not bring their world views into their judging because that would be discrimination.

 

None of that excuses making outrageous statements about an ethnic group and then claiming that a judge from that group can't be impartial because of YOUR statements.

 

I didn't make that connection, Sotomayor did, when she said the ethnicity of a judge will make a difference in their judgments. Therefore, anyone can ask for a change of venue because of a judge's ethnicity. And it can't be racist, because Sotomayor affirmed it was true. And so, by the way, did your Tom Goldstein.

Everybody is a product of their environment, it would be silly to say otherwise. But you wouldn't blink at the scenario if Trump were hispanic and the judge were white... you'd be out there cheering him on. Because the liberals have foolishly made this political, Curiel must recuse himself because his judgment will always seem political, not just. There is a law for that:

Title 18, United States Code, section 455 governs substance.

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

To make matters even dirtier, Curiel was named in a brochure as a member of the selection committee for La Raza’s 2014 Annual Scholarship Fund Dinner & Gala. Meanwhile, the San-Diego based law firm representing the plaintiffs in the Trump University case, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, was listed as a sponsor of the event.

WND reported the San Diego firm employing Curiel paid $675,000 to the Clintons for speeches, and the firm’s founder is a wealthy San Diego lawyer who served a two-year sentence in federal prison for his role in a kickback scheme to mobilize plaintiffs for class-action lawsuits.

While critics of Trump have argued that the San Diego La Raza Lawyers’ association is not affiliated with the National Council of La Raza, consider the following:

The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association is a member of the La Raza Lawyers of California, affiliated with the Chicano/Latino Bar Association of California.
On the website of the La Raza Lawyers Association of California, at the bottom of the “Links & Affiliates Page,” the National Council of La Raza is listed.
The website of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association is joint-listed as San Diego’s Latino/Latina Bar Association.
On the “endorsements” page, the combined website lists the National Council of La Raza as part of the “community,” along with the Hispanic National Bar Association,, a group that emerged with a changed name from the originally formed La Raza National Lawyers Association and the La Raza National Bar Association tracing its origin back to 1971.
Further, while the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association and the National Council of La Raza are legally separate incorporated entities, the two groups appear to have an affiliation that traces back to the emergence of MEChA, the Moviemento Estudiantil Chicanos de Atzlán.

MEChA is a 1960s radical separatist student movement in California that espoused the mythical Aztec idea of a “nation of Aztlán,” comprising much of the southwestern United States, including California.

As David Horowitz points out on his website Discover the Networks that La Raza, Spanish for “the race,” also has roots in the early 1960s with a “united front” organization, the National Organization for Mexican American Services, NOMAS. The group initially was funded by the Ford Foundation, and subsequently by George Soros’ Open Society Institute and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

In 1968, the Southwest Council of La Raza was organized with Ford Foundation funding. In 1972, the group changed its name to the National Council of La Raza and opened an office in Washington, D.C.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/trump-u-...tional-council-of-laraza/#sXlsrabRpOW6eoii.99

So, it really is like legal council for the KKK sitting in judgment of a black man, isn't it?

 

And you are intentionally being disingenuous on what Sotomayor actually said and meant. We all have our own experiences regardless of our ethnicity. What she was saying is that minorities, like the majority, are going to use their life experiences to be as wise as possible. That is not the same thing as what you are alluding to.

 

Most people's life experience would say it is a bad idea to put a black defendant up in front of a judge who has a history of working with the KKK.

 

The issue would be the KKK and not the racial background of the judge. The lawyers would be well within their duty to request the judge to recuse himself because of that history, not because the judge was white.

 

So, you never heard the original quote? The judge is tied up with LaRaza.

 

Yes, he is tied to a local bar association that uses the phrase "La Raza.": This is like you arguing that simply because an empty can of beer is next to the person that the person was drinking while driving.