Official Donald Trump for President thread (3 Viewers)

[rct]

Trump has a legitimate claim that the Judge should recuse himself for potential bias.  The guy belongs to San Diego La Raza, an advocacy group for Latinos - even illegals.

Identity politics coming home to roost.

Really? Then how come his attorneys have not filed a motion for recusal in either of the suits?

 

[The General]

Trump has a legitimate claim that the Judge should recuse himself for potential bias.  The guy belongs to San Diego La Raza, an advocacy group for Latinos - even illegals.

Identity politics coming home to roost.

Higgs!

You are doing it wrong, the complaint should be "He's Mexican, okay. And, I'm building a wall". See how much better that sounds.

 

[tone1oc]

Trump has a legitimate claim that the Judge should recuse himself for potential bias.  The guy belongs to San Diego La Raza, an advocacy group for Latinos - even illegals.

Identity politics coming home to roost.

He Is part of La Raza, a group of Mexican lawyers, not the advocacy group you speak of.  This is misinformation getting spread in the echo chamber.  Even if he was though, it shouldn't matter.

Why doesn't Donald file a motion to recluse?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Trump has a legitimate claim that the Judge should recuse himself for potential bias.  The guy belongs to San Diego La Raza, an advocacy group for Latinos - even illegals.

Identity politics coming home to roost.

But he doesn't and won't file a motion to recuse. He's FOS also.

 

[3C's]

Trump has a legitimate claim that the Judge should recuse himself for potential bias.  The guy belongs to San Diego La Raza, an advocacy group for Latinos - even illegals.

Identity politics coming home to roost.

 

[Higgs]

Really? Then how come his attorneys have not filed a motion for recusal in either of the suits?

That's a good question, and I don't know the answer.  Maybe they are planning to do it?  Maybe there is legal precedence that protects Judges being involved in advocacy groups like this.  But common sense says that if a Judge is so passionate about Latino issues that he's part of a group like La Raza, that he probably has an inherent bias when it comes to Donald a Trump right now.

My argument here continues to be that all the identity politics nonsense in this country - centered around race - is completely nonsensical, racist by definition, and on the whole harmful in 2016.  These groups had a purpose in the days when there wasn't equal protection umber the law, but now that we have legal protections in place these groups should go the to same place that Jim Crow went to.

 

[Higgs]

He Is part of La Raza, a group of Mexican lawyers, not the advocacy group you speak of.  This is misinformation getting spread in the echo chamber.  Even if he was though, it shouldn't matter.

Why doesn't Donald file a motion to recluse?

Not according to their Mission Statement... http://sdlrla.com/about/mission-statement/

Specifically, the goals of SDLRLA are:

• Increase the overall number of Latinos in the legal profession.

• Encourage and support Latino and Latina judicial candidates to apply to the bench

• Advocate for the promotion and retention of Latino and Latina attorneys and judicial officers.

• Improve the professional skills of our members through our certified MCLE programs.

• Provide for the professional and social interaction among our members and other organized bar associations.

• Improve the delivery and access of legal services to the county’s Spanish speaking community.

• Provide role models and mentoring to Latino youth through direct interaction with students and school districts.

• Strongly advocate positions on judicial, economic and social issues to political leaders and state and local bar associations that impact the Latino community.

 

[Higgs]

Hmm.  You know what's a really good way to "Strongly advocate positions on judicial, economic and social issues to political leaders and state and local bar associations that impact the Latino community"?  Here's one - Rule against the biggest threat to Latinos that this country has ever seen.

 

[tone1oc]

Not according to their Mission Statement... http://sdlrla.com/about/mission-statement/

I don't see anything in there that should prevent a judge from being able to hear his case. 

 

[Higgs]

But he doesn't and won't file a motion to recuse. He's FOS also.

Take your personal bias against Trump out of it and look at this objectively.  You're a smart guy - you know conflicts of interest probably better than anyone in here.  Read La Raza's Mission Statement.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Take your personal bias against Trump out of it and look at this objectively.  You're a smart guy - you know conflicts of interest probably better than anyone in here.  Read La Raza's Mission Statement.  

 

Mission Statement


Formed in 1979, with a handful of Latino attorneys, San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association (SDLRLA) has grown to represent over three hundred Latino and Latina lawyers practicing in San Diego County. SDLRLA is one of 18 affiliate bar associations of the California La Raza Lawyers Association, which serves several thousand Latino lawyers practicing in the State of California.

Our purpose is to advance the cause of equality, empowerment and justice for Latino attorneys and the Latino community in San Diego County through service and advocacy. We are dedicated to promoting diversity on both the bench and bar. We support law students with mentorship programs and scholarships.

Our members include current and former state and federal court judges, magistrates, referees, law professors, State Bar committee members, county bar board directors, government officials, elected officials, lawyers practicing in all specialty areas and law students.

Specifically, the goals of SDLRLA are:

• Increase the overall number of Latinos in the legal profession.

• Encourage and support Latino and Latina judicial candidates to apply to the bench

• Advocate for the promotion and retention of Latino and Latina attorneys and judicial officers.

• Improve the professional skills of our members through our certified MCLE programs.

• Provide for the professional and social interaction among our members and other organized bar associations.

• Improve the delivery and access of legal services to the county’s Spanish speaking community.

• Provide role models and mentoring to Latino youth through direct interaction with students and school districts.

• Strongly advocate positions on judicial, economic and social issues to political leaders and state and local bar associations that impact the Latino community.

http://sdlrla.com/about/mission-statement/

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Higgs - arguably he has insulted: muslims, women, Hispanics, Catholics, Cruz conservatives, Rubio conservatives, and Hillary fans.

And his argument is that he can automatically create a need for recusal by stating something publicly that the judge hates, whoever he/she is anyway.

Now which judge in America could withstand the Trump argument for recusal?

- eta - Hell, let's say Curiel did step down for the heck of it. Which judge would take over?

 

[Higgs]

Surprisingly good article on conflicts of interests, Juducial Code, and historical context.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification

 

[rct]

That's a good question, and I don't know the answer.  Maybe they are planning to do it?  Maybe there is legal precedence that protects Judges being involved in advocacy groups like this.  But common sense says that if a Judge is so passionate about Latino issues that he's part of a group like La Raza, that he probably has an inherent bias when it comes to Donald a Trump right now.

My argument here continues to be that all the identity politics nonsense in this country - centered around race - is completely nonsensical, racist by definition, and on the whole harmful in 2016.  These groups had a purpose in the days when there wasn't equal protection umber the law, but now that we have legal protections in place these groups should go the to same place that Jim Crow went to.

Obviously. There is no prohibition for a judge belonging to a lawyer's association comprised of or devoted to members of a minority group. It is not considered a conflict of interest or showing bias in any case that would be presented to a court. Besides Hispanics, there are associations for Black, Asian and Gay attorney's and all of them have members of the judiciary.

If the attorney's were to file a motion of recusal due to the judge's ethnicity, it would be a frivolous motion and might even result in disciplinary action from the State Bar. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Surprisingly good article on conflicts of interests, Judicial Code, and historical context.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification

When's the recusal motion coming? Should be clear as day, right?

 

[Higgs]

Higgs - arguably he has insulted: muslims, women, Hispanics, Catholics, Cruz conservatives, Rubio conservatives, and Hillary fans.

And his argument is that he can automatically create a need for recusal by stating something publicly that the judge hates, whoever he/she is anyway.

Now which judge in America could withstand the Trump argument for recusal?

That's pretty funny actually, and thought provoking.  I guess it comes down to what people believe results in a significant personal bias.  Because yeah, you could take this to ridiculous extremes (i.e. _ the Judge is a Democrat).  It's a judgment call.  And in my opinion, there is soooo much passion around the issue of Latinos and Trump that if there ever was a case of philosophical / racial conflict of interest, this would be it.  I think the Judge should just step down and end the controversy.  Plenty of other Judges without potential conflicts of interest could take this on.

 

[sho nuff]

Take your personal bias against Trump out of it and look at this objectively.  You're a smart guy - you know conflicts of interest probably better than anyone in here.  Read La Raza's Mission Statement.  

Objectively, Trump is again acting like a child.

You would have a point if he was filing a legal motion against the judge...rather than spouting off calling him a hated in the media.

And you talking  about Bias is freaking awesome.

 

[Higgs]

The reason his lawyers don't file a motion to recuse is even they know he is full of it. Seriously. Look it up.

He also had to give a deposition in the case on his net worth. I wonder why he's not TRUMPeting those numbers? Wait a second, I think we all know the answer to that one too.

Actually, I think the reason is that there is no legitimate legal recourse.  The Judge is the one that makes the call, right?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Plenty of other Judges without potential conflicts of interest could take this on.

Who the hell is left? White guys with no political, religious or ethnic affiliation who support Trump?

If the judge supports Trump, then he gets recused.

Do you know how federal judges get appointed?

 

[Higgs]

When's the recusal motion coming? Should be clear as day, right?

No, it's not clear.  Issues of personal bias aren't clear.  But I have found that usually the best course of action is - if there is the appearance of a conflict, deal with it and eliminate it.

question for you, what if there was a case where a black man was on trial, and the Judge was a member of a white supremacist group?  Would it be fair and reasonable to have that Judge recused?  How is this different?

 

[Higgs]

Who the hell is left? White guys with no political, religious or ethnic affiliation who support Trump?

Do you know how federal judges get appointed?

I said that the only issue that would be significant enough to trigger a potential bias and conflict of interest was the Latino/Mexican issue.  Maybe they could find a Judge who hasn't provided scholarships to illegal aliens and been a part of an Advocacy Group that strongly supports and pines for Latino issues?

 

[3C's]

Let's see what an expert thinks. Link

 

[3C's]

But wait, there's more.

 

[timschochet]

Higgs if this was a case about Latinos suing Trump because of something involving Latino interests, you might have more of an argument. As it is you have none. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

No, it's not clear.  Issues of personal bias aren't clear.  But I have found that usually the best course of action is - if there is the appearance of a conflict, deal with it and eliminate it.

question for you, what if there was a case where a black man was on trial, and the Judge was a member of a white supremacist group?  Would it be fair and reasonable to have that Judge recused?  How is this different?

A judge who is a member of a white supremacist group say the KKK should be thrown off the bench.

I guess I could have arguments against La Raza in a number of ways - but the San Diego Latino Bar Association? No, as a matter of fact, I think judges and lawyers and other professions can belong to Catholic, Confederate Sons/Daughters, Jewish, black, hispanic, and women's groups, and even ideological groups like the Federalist Society and ACLU professional associations.

Almost all these judges are coming from some politically connected milieu to begin with. If anyone wants to have a discussion about the way these people get nominated I am glad to have it but given the system there is not a judge in the land who would be able to hear a case if what Donald wants were the rule.

 

[Higgs]

Let's see what an expert thinks. Link

He didn't even address the issue of the Judge's involvement with La Raza.  That's the issue at play here.  If he was just of Mexican descent I wouldn't be making this argument.  It has everything to do with him part of an Advocacy Group that openly espouses political viewpoints.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Higgs if this was a case about Latinos suing Trump because of something involving Latino interests, you might have more of an argument. As it is you have none. 

No, not even then. It would have to be the association that Curiel belongs to.

 

[timschochet]

He didn't even address the issue of the Judge's involvement with La Raza.  That's the issue at play here.  If he was just of Mexican descent I wouldn't be making this argument.  It has everything to do with him part of an Advocacy Group that openly espouses political viewpoints.

But what do those viewpoints have to do with Trump University? 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

He didn't even address the issue of the Judge's involvement with La Raza.  That's the issue at play here.  If he was just of Mexican descent I wouldn't be making this argument.  It has everything to do with him part of an Advocacy Group that openly espouses political viewpoints.

Higgs, This is La Raza.

This is the Sand Diego Latino Bar Association aka the San Diego La Raza Bar Association.

Two different things.

 

[Higgs]

But wait, there's more.

Another bad article.  Here is what they say about his affiliation with La Raza...

First off, the organization, there is a political advocacy organization called La Raza which does do advocacy. That is not the group the judge is a part of. He is part of a different group that is also called La Raza [Lawyers of San Diego] which is simply a lawyer’s fraternal organization,” Toobin added. “It is never grounds for recusal.”'/quote]

That is patently false.  I posted San Diego La Raza's Mission Statement above, which says as clear as day that they are a strong Advocacy Group for Latinos.  Shockingly bad journalism, or perhaps, it wasn't a mistake?

 

[3C's]

He didn't even address the issue of the Judge's involvement with La Raza.  That's the issue at play here.  If he was just of Mexican descent I wouldn't be making this argument.  It has everything to do with him part of an Advocacy Group that openly espouses political viewpoints.

He doesn't have to. It has no bearing on the case or "conflict of interest".

 

[Higgs]

A judge who is a member of a white supremacist group say the KKK should be thrown off the bench.

I guess I could have arguments against La Raza in a number of ways - but the San Diego Latino Bar Association? No, as a matter of fact, I think judges and lawyers and other professions can belong to Catholic, Confederate Sons/Daughters, Jewish, black, hispanic, and women's groups, and even ideological groups like the Federalist Society and ACLU professional associations.

Almost all these judges are coming from some politically connected milieu to begin with. If anyone wants to have a discussion about the way these people get nominated I am glad to have it but given the system there is not a judge in the land who would be able to hear a case if what Donald wants were the rule.

My argument is that Judges shouldn't belong to ANY of these groups.

 

[3C's]

It's only a bad article because it doesn't agree with your opinion. I'll take the opinion of legal experts on this one.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

My argument is that Judges shouldn't belong to ANY of these groups.

Well then we are all in for a very difficult time changing the legal landscape of America.

If you ever want to talk campaign contributions and how federal judges get appointed, then give me a shout `cuz I'm there but I don't expect people to stop being whatever they are in order to be a lawyer, judge, doctor, engineer right on all the way to dishwasher. This is calling for politicization of American life on a massive scale - because why stop at the judiciary - and on a pretty scary racial/ethic basis to boot which moves it into the red zone for me.

 

[Higgs]

He doesn't have to. It has no bearing on the case or "conflict of interest".

Difference of opinion I guess.  I would argue that if someone is involved in an Advocacy Group, it takes things to another level.  It makes one more aligned and committed to the cause.  I don't think it can be argued that one is likely to be more biased if he belongs to such a group.  As to whether it rises to the level of a Judge having to recuse himself, yeah - reasonable people can differ on that Debate.

You guys have all seen how polarized the country has become, and much bias exists in every walk of life these days.  The media is so replete with it that they don't even realize when they are being biased anymore.  It's not a stretch to think that on such an inflammatory issue as Trump and Latino issues that it would bleed into this Judge's thought process.

 

[Higgs]

No, not even then. It would have to be the association that Curiel belongs to.

You are correct in that the legal precedence is that on issues of race, the race of the Judge does not by itself constitute an inherent personal bias warranting recusal.  But guess who established such a precedent?  Yup - black Judges.  Just sayin...

 

[timschochet]

Much more important even than the question of the judge's  impartiality is that when Trump calls him "a Mexican" it's a call for bigotry and ethnic division. It's not something that we've ever accepted in this country from a major political figure (at least not in recent times) and it's not something we should tolerate now. 

 

[Joe Summer]

The flaw in Trump's argument is that he assumes that the judge is opposed to The Wall.

Why would a person make such an assumption? Gee I wonder.

But aside from the inherent racism in making that assumption, it also completely BETRAYS Trump's claims that "most" Mexican-Americans agree with him.

 

[Higgs]

Well then we are all in for a very difficult time changing the legal landscape of America.

If you ever want to talk campaign contributions and how federal judges get appointed, then give me a shout `cuz I'm there but I don't expect people to stop being whatever they are in order to be a lawyer, judge, doctor, engineer right on all the way to dishwasher. This is calling for politicization of American life on a massive scale - because why stop at the judiciary - and on a pretty scary racial/ethic basis to boot which moves it into the red zone for me.

Just Judges, Saint.  And I don't think it's such a leap to ask that they not be involved in any Advocacy Groups.  There's already some semblance of this in that Supreme Court Justices having to refrain from overt showings of political alignment isn't there?  I'm not asking for Judges to stop voting or registering with a Political Party.  Just no other groups.  Remain impartial, in deed and appearance.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You are correct in that the legal precedence is that on issues of race, the race of the Judge does not by itself constitute an inherent personal bias warranting recusal.  But guess who established such a precedent?  Yup - black Judges.  Just sayin...

Yeah I think Tim has it wrong too. - I live in a city which has a lot of black judges, and we elect our judges (talk about real politicization and improper bias in the courtroom...).

We have had a running court battle here to take down Confederate monuments, long story but it's basically the SC thing but with statues of Robert E. Lee, Jeff Davis, Gen. Beuregard, and celebrating an armed revolt vs the federal and state governments in 1874.

Now who do you think should hear those cases, a black judge or a white judge?

Btw not once has anyone even mentioned the thought of raising the Trump Rule.

 

[Higgs]

It's only a bad article because it doesn't agree with your opinion. I'll take the opinion of legal experts on this one.

Exhibit A of personal bias precluding someone from using their mind - both the authors and you my friend.

 

[Higgs]

Why did Curiel rule against (or in favor, about half the time) of Trump before his stupid wall idea? The case has been going on since 2010.

Well then one thing we know for sure is that you are a bad judge.

Are you ok with a Judge belonging to a white supremacist group?  You know, the newfangled ones that don't advocate violence or anything illegal - just advocating for policies that benefit whites - identity politics in the same rely as La Raza, NAACP, etc.. Thoughts?

 

[3C's]

The silly point of this argument is that there's supposedly a conflict of interest because, according to Trump, Curiel is Mexican and Trump is going to build a wall. There is no conflict there. Trump didn't say on the Tapper interview anything about La Raza and even if he had it would be just as ludicrous.

 

[The General]

My argument is that Judges shouldn't belong to ANY of these groups.

Since we are concerned about conflicts of interest, how's about this: LINK

Any issues here?

 

[3C's]

Exhibit A of personal bias precluding someone from using their mind - both the authors and you my friend.

That's rich.

 

[Higgs]

Yeah I think Tim has it wrong too. - I live in a city which has a lot of black judges, and we elect our judges (talk about real politicization and improper bias in the courtroom...).

We have had a running court battle here to take down Confederate monuments, long story but it's basically the SC thing but with statues of Robert E. Lee, Jeff Davis, Gen. Beuregard, and celebrating an armed revolt vs the federal and state governments in 1874.

Now who do you think should hear those cases, a black judge or a white judge?

Btw not once has anyone even mentioned the thought of raising the Trump Rule.

I'd like the Judge to hear that case not to belong to any Advocacy Group that is impacted by the issues presented.  If a white Judge belonged to the Southern Heritage Society, I'd say that he probably has an inherent bias.  If a black Judge is involved in the NAACP, I'd probably say that he has an unacceptable personal bias as well.  Pretty simple actually.  I'm just asking that Judges not be involved with Advocacy Groups.  Surprised the issue hasn't come up more.

 

[rct]

My argument is that Judges shouldn't belong to ANY of these groups.

There is not any state bar in this nation that would agree with you. Belonging to a minority lawyer's association is not considered a conflict of interest or grounds for recusal (unless it was some situation where the group itself was a party to the litigation).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just Judges, Saint.  And I don't think it's such a leap to ask that they not be involved in any Advocacy Groups.  There's already some semblance of this in that Supreme Court Justices having to refrain from overt showings of political alignment isn't there?  I'm not asking for Judges to stop voting or registering with a Political Party.  Just no other groups.  Remain impartial, in deed and appearance.

As has been pointed out Sotomayor said the bit about 'wise Latina' and I'm really damned sure that Scalia was a big Catholic and constitutionalist. No one ever asked her to recuse herself from any affirmative action cases because of her statement or him from abortion case and the wide myriad where his overt expressions have been made clear.

Did you watch the Tapper interview by any chance?

Trump abandoned the SDLBA argument for 'he's Mexican' and 'I'm building a wall.' So let's stick to what is actually going on here, Trump himself did not maintain his argument when pressed.

And his attorneys are free to bring a motion to recuse at any time. They're pretty irresponsible to let Trump lose a Motion for Summary Judgement and have the case set for discovery and trial at this point, don't you think? Heck it sounds like Trump should fire his lawyers.

 

[Higgs]

Much more important even than the question of the judge's  impartiality is that when Trump calls him "a Mexican" it's a call for bigotry and ethnic division. It's not something that we've ever accepted in this country from a major political figure (at least not in recent times) and it's not something we should tolerate now. 

I hate it too Tim.  But this is the ugly flip side of the identity politics that has been rammed down our throats for the last 20 years.  You cn't have it both ways my friend.  If people are so inherently racist that there is still a need for minority identity politics, then the same holds true in reverse.  You know my position on this issue.  I've been screaming it in here for years - the time has come to do away with all these divisive groups.  Everyone is equal, everyone is an American.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'd like the Judge to hear that case not to belong to any Advocacy Group that is impacted by the issues presented.  If a white Judge belonged to the Southern Heritage Society, I'd say that he probably has an inherent bias.  If a black Judge is involved in the NAACP, I'd probably say that he has an unacceptable personal bias as well.  Pretty simple actually.  I'm just asking that Judges not be involved with Advocacy Groups.  Surprised the issue hasn't come up more.

Ok well I hate to tell you the black judges almost all - and I'd bet all - belong to the Martinet Society (black lawyers association) and the white judges typically belong to some group as well. and they are all politically connected.

There is not a court in the land where this would work or be applied and that is why Donald's lawyer's won't file a motion to recuse.