Now its Muslim Judges too .

[Redfish]

The point here, that you libs cant seem to grasp, is that judges should not let their personal views or political leanings influence their decisions-----------------BUT THEY DO.

Judges should not be making decisions based on their views of social engineering or which political candidate they favor. Judicial decisions should be based on law and nothing else.

Do any of you really believe that Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan are not basing their decisions on their political views? And yes, the conservatives on the SC are doing it too. And they are all wrong when they don't decide cases strictly on the law and the constitution.

Trump is merely pointing out what anyone with a lick of common sense already knows.

 

[protectionist]

I'm a liberal in terms of acess to courts, and a defendant should always be able to question motives of an accuser IF there's a reasonable ground. But Trump is saying any latino or muslim can't be a JUDGE in suit against him because of political positions Trump took against latinos and muslims.

I thought the difference between Trump and OJ was too obvious to need spelling out

NO! That's NOT what he's saying, and it sounds like you have been listening to the common distortions of the Trumpbashers. Post # 13 (and again in # 29) lists the biases of Curiel. THEY are why he shouldn't be ruling in the Trump U case. Get the FACTS before you post.

 

[Redfish]

one way to avoid answering questions about the issues that every presidential hopeful needs to answer, YOUR COUNTRY'S FUTURE ... make every day about your personal life and create as much controversy as you possibly can.

or by pandering to every tiny demographic and lying to them like Hillary and Bernie are doing.

Is the FBI investigation of Hillary a controversy? If so, why is most of the media silent on it?

Trump dislikes a judge and Hillary gives away classified data to our enemies-------which gets more media play? This is fricken crazy.

 

[dani67]

new day, new rant ..

Trump: "It's possible" a Muslim judge would be unfair



whine whine whine ....

how many % usa judge are moslem or mexican?

 

[bendog]

The point here, that you libs cant seem to grasp, is that judges should not let their personal views or political leanings influence their decisions-----------------BUT THEY DO.

Judges should not be making decisions based on their views of social engineering or which political candidate they favor. Judicial decisions should be based on law and nothing else.

Do any of you really believe that Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan are not basing their decisions on their political views? And yes, the conservatives on the SC are doing it too. And they are all wrong when they don't decide cases strictly on the law and the constitution.

Trump is merely pointing out what anyone with a lick of common sense already knows.

Specifically, how has Curiel based any SPECIFIC decision on his personnel views? Trump's attorney even says he hasn't

 

[Theowl32]

You truly are a clueless twit.

That's what YOU are. Of course it's possible for a Muslim to be biased, and anyone who knows anything about Islam knows that it is just about impossible for a Muslim to NOT be biased.

They, in their stupid arrogant ignorant hypocritical brainwashed minds believe only white right wing Christians have the ability to be biased and racist.

That btw is literally true.

 

[bendog]

I'm a liberal in terms of acess to courts, and a defendant should always be able to question motives of an accuser IF there's a reasonable ground. But Trump is saying any latino or muslim can't be a JUDGE in suit against him because of political positions Trump took against latinos and muslims.

I thought the difference between Trump and OJ was too obvious to need spelling out

NO! That's NOT what he's saying, and it sounds like you have been listening to the common distortions of the Trumpbashers. Post # 13 (and again in # 29) lists the biases of Curiel. THEY are why he shouldn't be ruling in the Trump U case. Get the FACTS before you post.

Nothing ties curiel's views to any action he took

 

[Redfish]

new day, new rant ..

Trump: "It's possible" a Muslim judge would be unfair



whine whine whine ....

how many % usa judge are moslem or mexican?

are muslim and Mexican races of human beings? You libs keep screaming "racism" and you don't even know what is a race and what is a religion or a national origin.

Hispanic is not a race
muslim is not a race
Mexican is not a race
African is not a race
Russian is not a race
Italian is not a race
Irish is not a race
gay is not a race
lesbian is not a race
transgender is not a race
European is not a race
arab is not a race
Persian is not a race

Damn, people, learn something before posting bullshit.

 

[NightFox]

Probably something to do with the fact that you should have to some empirical evidence that said person is biased rather than relying purely on anecdotal evidence, this is especially true in a case where the defendant is RUNNING FOR POTUS.

The fact of the matter is, the Donald is shooting himself in the foot with all this nonsense because he's basically proving his opponents claims that he's a bigot, his campaign manager really needs to tell him to STFU about this matter.

You are proving that you are a FOOL who comes into a thread posting blindly, without reading it, and makes stupid charges about "relying purely on anecdotal evidence," when the "empirical evidence" you are whining about, was already posted right here in this thread before you posted (see Post # 13)

THAT is the "fact of the matter"

Uh-Huh, whatever you say and please be sure and let the rest of the class know when you figure out the meaning of empirical evidence and how it differs from that of anecdotal evidence because the empirical evidence indicates that you don't yet understand either.

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." -- Socrates

 

[Redfish]

The point here, that you libs cant seem to grasp, is that judges should not let their personal views or political leanings influence their decisions-----------------BUT THEY DO.

Judges should not be making decisions based on their views of social engineering or which political candidate they favor. Judicial decisions should be based on law and nothing else.

Do any of you really believe that Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan are not basing their decisions on their political views? And yes, the conservatives on the SC are doing it too. And they are all wrong when they don't decide cases strictly on the law and the constitution.

Trump is merely pointing out what anyone with a lick of common sense already knows.

Specifically, how has Curiel based any SPECIFIC decision on his personnel views? Trump's attorney even says he hasn't

We will probably never know, but what we do know is that he might and that is enough to ask him to recuse himself. He is an acknowledged member of La Raza, a Hispanic grievance group, La Raza has come out against Trump, that is sufficient reason to doubt his impartiality

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Meanwhile, trump supporters are being attacked and beaten in the streets.

Not an issue.

Another ridiculous red herring fallacy from the reprehensible right.

The topic is Trump and the fact he's a bigot, but your failed attempt to deflect is understandable.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

new day, new rant ..

Trump: "It's possible" a Muslim judge would be unfair



whine whine whine ....

Are you saying it would NOT be possible?

You truly are a clueless twit.

Hmmm. I'm not the one saying it would not be possible for a Muslim judge to be unfair.

 

[protectionist]

That is what the religious bigots who hate our Constitution say.

Oh wait- no that is what you- a religious bigot who hates our Constitutions says.

I guess you didn't notice that the post you criticized mentioned the Constitution also. Apparently a part of the Constitution that you are clueless about.

PS -Islam is not a religion, and even if it was, it still could not be supreme over the Constitution. Nothing can do that - religion or no religion. (US Constitution Article 6, Section 2, the Supremacy Clause) And the Supremacy Clause outlaws all supremacisms (including Islam), other than the Constitution itself.

But go ahead with your little bigot card if somehow that gives you some false sense of security.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I remember how the defense of OJ Simpson centered around the racism of one of the police officers. Even though they couldn't prove he tampered with the evidence it was enough in the minds of the black jurors to convince them that he did. I don't understand why white people can't ask the same questions about hispanic or black cops who arrest them. Why can't Trump bring up someone's muslim heritage and ask if the would unfairly create any kind of bias in any case he is involved it.

I also believe the constitution allows any defendant an aggressive defense so why can't any white person use the same defense as anyone else in this country?

This doesn't have anything to do with the fact Trump is a bigot.

 

[NightFox]

The point here, that you libs cant seem to grasp, is that judges should not let their personal views or political leanings influence their decisions-----------------BUT THEY DO.

Judges should not be making decisions based on their views of social engineering or which political candidate they favor. Judicial decisions should be based on law and nothing else.

Do any of you really believe that Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan are not basing their decisions on their political views? And yes, the conservatives on the SC are doing it too. And they are all wrong when they don't decide cases strictly on the law and the constitution.

Trump is merely pointing out what anyone with a lick of common sense already knows.

Specifically, how has Curiel based any SPECIFIC decision on his personnel views? Trump's attorney even says he hasn't

We will probably never know, but what we do know is that he might and that is enough to ask him to recuse himself. He is an acknowledged member of La Raza, a Hispanic grievance group, La Raza has come out against Trump, that is sufficient reason to doubt his impartiality

Wrong La Raza, Curiel is a member of the La Raza formally known as the Latino Bar Association of California which has no affiliation to the National Council of La Raza (the radical grievance group you're referring to).

 

[protectionist]

Another ridiculous red herring fallacy from the reprehensible right.

The topic is Trump and the fact he's a bigot, but your failed attempt to deflect is understandable.

Another ridiculous red herring fallacy from the reprehensible left.

The topic is Islam and the fact it is bigoted, but your failed attempt to deflect is understandable

 

[Redfish]

I remember how the defense of OJ Simpson centered around the racism of one of the police officers. Even though they couldn't prove he tampered with the evidence it was enough in the minds of the black jurors to convince them that he did. I don't understand why white people can't ask the same questions about hispanic or black cops who arrest them. Why can't Trump bring up someone's muslim heritage and ask if the would unfairly create any kind of bias in any case he is involved it.

I also believe the constitution allows any defendant an aggressive defense so why can't any white person use the same defense as anyone else in this country?

This doesn't have anything to do with the fact Trump is a bigot.

do bigots pander to minorities?


"ah aint no ways tarred" HRC to a black church congregation.

"I'll have them ni66ers voting democrat for the next 200 years" LBJ

 

[Redfish]

The point here, that you libs cant seem to grasp, is that judges should not let their personal views or political leanings influence their decisions-----------------BUT THEY DO.

Judges should not be making decisions based on their views of social engineering or which political candidate they favor. Judicial decisions should be based on law and nothing else.

Do any of you really believe that Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan are not basing their decisions on their political views? And yes, the conservatives on the SC are doing it too. And they are all wrong when they don't decide cases strictly on the law and the constitution.

Trump is merely pointing out what anyone with a lick of common sense already knows.

Specifically, how has Curiel based any SPECIFIC decision on his personnel views? Trump's attorney even says he hasn't

We will probably never know, but what we do know is that he might and that is enough to ask him to recuse himself. He is an acknowledged member of La Raza, a Hispanic grievance group, La Raza has come out against Trump, that is sufficient reason to doubt his impartiality

Wrong La Raza, Curiel is a member of the La Raza formally known as the Latino Bar Association of California which has no affiliation to the National Council of La Raza (the radical grievance group you're referring to).

and you really believe there is no connection? If so, I have some ocean front property to sell you in Kansas

 

[protectionist]

This doesn't have anything to do with the fact Trump is a bigot.

There is no fact of Trump being a bigot, and you don't have a shred of evidence to support that ludicrous claim. But there's TONS of evidence to support the reporting of Islam's bigotry. That's been going on for 1400 years. All one need do is read the Koran. Simple as that.

 

[protectionist]

Wrong La Raza, Curiel is a member of the La Raza formally known as the Latino Bar Association of California which has no affiliation to the National Council of La Raza (the radical grievance group you're referring to).

Doesn't matter. He's affliliated with San Diego La Raza Lawyers Assn and Hispanic National Bar Assn. That's all that need be known. See Post # 13.