Should we remove Hispanic judges?

[Siete]

What irks me is that racists like you try to say things that are not so, then what makes happy is that you go crazy when called out.

If you are a white nationalist, fine, but don't hide.

This guy never got called out for anything


and this is so not racist because he was a 'former' KKK member. They were all democrats so that means everyone is cool with it.

Byrd denounced his KKK connection and publicly apologized for it. He also gave an impassioned speech to stop the invasion of Iraq in 2002.

At least Robert Byrd apologized. What’s your excuse, David Duke?
At least Robert Byrd apologized. What’s your excuse, David Duke?

What's your excuse, SuperD?

I'm trying to make sure everyone gets a fair trial in this country. Justice should be blind. It doesn't discriminate and just follows the law for everyone equally. Why can't we ask the question of whether or not a hispanic judge should be removed from cases involving illegal immigration? If there is no evidence of bias then fine..let it continue. But if there is then why can't we remove those judges in those instances where it happens?

No one ever defended David Duke in the same way Byrd was. I don't ever recall anyone whoever said "Duke was a former KKK member" which is, I believe, a fact that is true. He quit the KKK but since he isn't a democrat then he will probably burn in Hell forever. Byrd is forgiven. How can non-whites trust a party that is willing to go to such lengths to defend a former KKK member and racist?

No you’re not – you’re being a liar and bigot.

That a judge alone might be Hispanic doesn’t mean he’ll ‘go soft’ on an Hispanic defendant in his court.

The notion of prohibiting an Hispanic judge from presiding over any court solely because his is Hispanic is unlawful and un-Constitutional.

And that this must be explained to you and other conservatives is sad and telling – it also comes as no surprise.

I don't think I ever said we were going to remove every hispanic judge in this country because they were hispanic.

just the judge in Trumps case.

as soon as you figure out La Raza.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I'm asking if hispanic judges should be allowed to preside over cases involving illegal immigration. I know 'liberals' feel a need to protect the proletariate from the vicious attacks of the white people in this country but this is getting downright silly.

No, liberals feel the need to protect the Constitution, its case law, the rule of law, and the rights of all citizens – including Hispanic Americans – from you and other conservatives hostile to the rights and protected liberties of all Americans.

That a judge might be Hispanic in no way, shape, or form ‘justifies’ removing him from the bench to preside over an immigration court or any other court in the land.

The notion is ignorant, moronic bigotry, typical of most on the right.

Your thread premise and this post are downright silly.

I feel your anger and I like it.

That you don’t understand why your ignorance, bigotry, and hate provokes justified anger is yet another manifestation of the reprehensible right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm trying to make sure everyone gets a fair trial in this country.

An admirable aim

Justice should be blind. It doesn't discriminate and just follows the law for everyone equally.

Yes. As is specified in the 14th Amendment to the US Constituiton

Why can't we ask the question of whether or not a hispanic judge should be removed from cases involving illegal immigration? If there is no evidence of bias then fine..let it continue. But if there is then why can't we remove those judges in those instances where it happens?

I believe you're confusing different issues. I'm no legal expert, but a judge is expected to recuse himself if actual circumstances would create the appearance of a conflict of interest whether or not such conflict or any affect on his judgement exists. A judge that systematically exhibited a prejudice or bias would be brought up on disbarment proceedings. Other than evidence of such a situation, judges are assumed to be objective and unbiased. What you're suggesting would encourage recusal requests for all judges matching any demographic factor present in the accused. It would take down the entire civil and criminal judicial systems. We would be operating under an assumption of bias rather than an assumption of objectivity. We would have violated innocent till proven guilty for the very people we selected to make those determinations in the first place.

What if it is shown Hispanic judges consistently show bias in these kind of cases?

And now we see the cowardice and dishonestly common to most on the right – as your thread premise was that being Hispanic in of itself should disqualify an Hispanic judge.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I'm trying to make sure everyone gets a fair trial in this country.

An admirable aim

Justice should be blind. It doesn't discriminate and just follows the law for everyone equally.

Yes. As is specified in the 14th Amendment to the US Constituiton

Why can't we ask the question of whether or not a hispanic judge should be removed from cases involving illegal immigration? If there is no evidence of bias then fine..let it continue. But if there is then why can't we remove those judges in those instances where it happens?

I believe you're confusing different issues. I'm no legal expert, but a judge is expected to recuse himself if actual circumstances would create the appearance of a conflict of interest whether or not such conflict or any affect on his judgement exists. A judge that systematically exhibited a prejudice or bias would be brought up on disbarment proceedings. Other than evidence of such a situation, judges are assumed to be objective and unbiased. What you're suggesting would encourage recusal requests for all judges matching any demographic factor present in the accused. It would take down the entire civil and criminal judicial systems. We would be operating under an assumption of bias rather than an assumption of objectivity. We would have violated innocent till proven guilty for the very people we selected to make those determinations in the first place.

What if it is shown Hispanic judges consistently show bias in these kind of cases?

And now we see the cowardice and dishonestly common to most on the right – as your thread premise was that being Hispanic in of itself should disqualify an Hispanic judge.

How is it different than college professors making students do essays on the systematic discrimination that whites inject onto minorities. They then ask questions about how we can correct that. The solutions then sound like something like should white people not be allowed to sit on juries or be judges in some cases. I don't get why it is different?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I'm trying to make sure everyone gets a fair trial in this country.

An admirable aim

Justice should be blind. It doesn't discriminate and just follows the law for everyone equally.

Yes. As is specified in the 14th Amendment to the US Constituiton

Why can't we ask the question of whether or not a hispanic judge should be removed from cases involving illegal immigration? If there is no evidence of bias then fine..let it continue. But if there is then why can't we remove those judges in those instances where it happens?

I believe you're confusing different issues. I'm no legal expert, but a judge is expected to recuse himself if actual circumstances would create the appearance of a conflict of interest whether or not such conflict or any affect on his judgement exists. A judge that systematically exhibited a prejudice or bias would be brought up on disbarment proceedings. Other than evidence of such a situation, judges are assumed to be objective and unbiased. What you're suggesting would encourage recusal requests for all judges matching any demographic factor present in the accused. It would take down the entire civil and criminal judicial systems. We would be operating under an assumption of bias rather than an assumption of objectivity. We would have violated innocent till proven guilty for the very people we selected to make those determinations in the first place.

What if it is shown Hispanic judges consistently show bias in these kind of cases?

And now we see the cowardice and dishonestly common to most on the right – as your thread premise was that being Hispanic in of itself should disqualify an Hispanic judge.

That was your thought...not mine. Why do you think racist thoughts?

 

[Contumacious]

I was thinking that in court cases that can set precedence about illegal immigration should we remove judges that are hispanic? This sounds kind of racist but we are constantly told that white people can't sit on jury because the accused is black so why can't we do the same thing for Hispanic judges?

Why can't Trump ask that the judge in Trump U case recurse himself because he is a member of La Raza which translates into 'the race'?

I was thinking that in court cases that can set precedence about illegal immigration should we remove judges that are white?


Yes, indeed. Look what happened to the Chinese in 1888 when 9 white scumbags members of the Aryan brotherhood no doubt:

In
CHAE CHAN PING v. UNITED STATES
130 U.S. 581 (9 S.Ct. 623, 32 L.Ed. 1068)Decided: May 13, 1889

SCOTUS admitted that There is no Constitutional authority for fedgov to interdict detain and deport UNDOCUMENTED Aliens.

But the Chinese were threatening "our people" (wink, wink) white Europeans. The mean Chinese were competing against white folks for work at the California Gold Mines. And by golly that constituted an "emergency" for the RACIST motherfuckers to USURP powers.

Donald Trump is right, federal courts are corrupt to their core.


The Chinese were NOT looking for welfare type handouts, nor for obama hellcare. nor for food stamps. It didn't matter.

The members of the Aryan brotherhood choose to ignore that Historical detail

.

 

[mudwhistle]

I was thinking that in court cases that can set precedence about illegal immigration should we remove judges that are hispanic? This sounds kind of racist but we are constantly told that white people can't sit on jury because the accused is black so why can't we do the same thing for Hispanic judges?

Why can't Trump ask that the judge in Trump U case recurse himself because he is a member of La Raza which translates into 'the race'?

Any judge who is accused of having a conflict of interest in any case can and should recuse himself from the case to avoid any improprieties, thus preventing a possible overturning of the verdict upon appeal. Trump's lawyers can't accuse the judge of this, but Trump can, because he isn't bound by law. Once there is an accusation, his lawyers can file for his recusal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You're on the wrong side of the action. We should prevent lawyers from intentionally creating all white or all black juries in an attempt to create a jury biased in their client's favor. From a larger scale perspective, juries - purportedly "of our peers" - should reflect the demographic makeup of the accused's community.

What if it is found that a black jury will give lighter sentences when the accused is black but heavier ones when the accused isn't black? I totally agree that their shouldn't be any racial bias at all but it seems like every strategy that is used to alleviate it seems to leave us exposed to it happening in another way?

I've kind of suggested that perhaps we should have standardized sentencing in order to alleviate this bias but absolutely no one would go for it in this country.

We do have sentencing guidelines.

We have had juries that sent innocent men and women to death because of their race.

We the American People are aware of all of this.

Your point being...white America should be hung for its crimes.

Your words are the silly words of a white nationalist, nothing more.

You are on record as to saying you attended the funeral of KKK members.

I did. As I attended services for Reagan and civil rights leaders and RFK and many others. In death, we are stripped of all the cares of mortality. You will be, I will be. You are a white nationalist. I am not. So make up your mind.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I was thinking that in court cases that can set precedence about illegal immigration should we remove judges that are hispanic? This sounds kind of racist but we are constantly told that white people can't sit on jury because the accused is black so why can't we do the same thing for Hispanic judges?

Why can't Trump ask that the judge in Trump U case recurse himself because he is a member of La Raza which translates into 'the race'?

Any judge who is accused of having a conflict of interest in any case can and should recuse himself from the case to avoid any improprieties, thus preventing a possible overturning of the verdict upon appeal. Trump's lawyers can't accuse the judge of this, but Trump can, because he isn't bound by law. Once there is an accusation, his lawyers can file for his recusal.

Trump has every right to do so, yes.

 

[MarcATL]

I was thinking that in court cases that can set precedence about illegal immigration should we remove judges that are hispanic? This sounds kind of racist but we are constantly told that white people can't sit on jury because the accused is black so why can't we do the same thing for Hispanic judges?

Why can't Trump ask that the judge in Trump U case recurse himself because he is a member of La Raza which translates into 'the race'?

How many times, you reckon, has there been an alk-black jury judging the case of a white defendant?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

You are NOT told that whites shouldn't sit on juries for cases involving blacks. It is noted that in certain regions of the country blacks have been excluded from juries to a level far below their proportion of the population and thus, in those regions, have had far more all-white juries sitting on black cases than we have had a representation of blacks on juries reflecting their proportion of the population. In such cases, the rate of conviction of blacks is far higher than otherwise.

What you are saying if there is a case where there are 12 white jurors some of them should be removed because the accused is black. That sounds like not allowing white people to be a juror in those cases.

You're on the wrong side of the action. We should prevent lawyers from intentionally creating all white or all black juries in an attempt to create a jury biased in their client's favor. From a larger scale perspective, juries - purportedly "of our peers" - should reflect the demographic makeup of the accused's community.

What if it is found that a black jury will give lighter sentences when the accused is black but heavier ones when the accused isn't black? I totally agree that their shouldn't be any racial bias at all but it seems like every strategy that is used to alleviate it seems to leave us exposed to it happening in another way?

I've kind of suggested that perhaps we should have standardized sentencing in order to alleviate this bias but absolutely no one would go for it in this country.

Is "standardized sentencing" constitutional?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Toro]

I was thinking that in court cases that can set precedence about illegal immigration should we remove judges that are hispanic? This sounds kind of racist but we are constantly told that white people can't sit on jury because the accused is black so why can't we do the same thing for Hispanic judges?

Why can't Trump ask that the judge in Trump U case recurse himself because he is a member of La Raza which translates into 'the race'?

Awesome.

You should call up the Trump campaign and suggest this to them. Maybe they'll do it.

Also, blacks, natives, Asians, Jews, Catholics, Italians, Russians, Poles, Mormons, women, Serbians, Shriners, Southerners, Polynesians, residents of the north island of New Zealand, the "poorly educated," Hindus, Muslims (especially Muslims), Texans, eskimos, Bulgarians, Turks, Indians, Boers, Buddhists, Animists, cartoonists, lawyers, doctors, judges, and baseball players.

 

[Contumacious]

You are NOT told that whites shouldn't sit on juries for cases involving blacks. It is noted that in certain regions of the country blacks have been excluded from juries to a level far below their proportion of the population and thus, in those regions, have had far more all-white juries sitting on black cases than we have had a representation of blacks on juries reflecting their proportion of the population. In such cases, the rate of conviction of blacks is far higher than otherwise.

What you are saying if there is a case where there are 12 white jurors some of them should be removed because the accused is black. That sounds like not allowing white people to be a juror in those cases.

You're on the wrong side of the action. We should prevent lawyers from intentionally creating all white or all black juries in an attempt to create a jury biased in their client's favor. From a larger scale perspective, juries - purportedly "of our peers" - should reflect the demographic makeup of the accused's community.

What if it is found that a black jury will give lighter sentences when the accused is black but heavier ones when the accused isn't black? I totally agree that their shouldn't be any racial bias at all but it seems like every strategy that is used to alleviate it seems to leave us exposed to it happening in another way?

I've kind of suggested that perhaps we should have standardized sentencing in order to alleviate this bias but absolutely no one would go for it in this country.

Is "standardized sentencing" constitutional?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

99.9% of federal crimes are NOT federal crimes.


.

 

[MarcATL]

You are NOT told that whites shouldn't sit on juries for cases involving blacks. It is noted that in certain regions of the country blacks have been excluded from juries to a level far below their proportion of the population and thus, in those regions, have had far more all-white juries sitting on black cases than we have had a representation of blacks on juries reflecting their proportion of the population. In such cases, the rate of conviction of blacks is far higher than otherwise.

What you are saying if there is a case where there are 12 white jurors some of them should be removed because the accused is black. That sounds like not allowing white people to be a juror in those cases.

You're on the wrong side of the action. We should prevent lawyers from intentionally creating all white or all black juries in an attempt to create a jury biased in their client's favor. From a larger scale perspective, juries - purportedly "of our peers" - should reflect the demographic makeup of the accused's community.

What if it is found that a black jury will give lighter sentences when the accused is black but heavier ones when the accused isn't black? I totally agree that their shouldn't be any racial bias at all but it seems like every strategy that is used to alleviate it seems to leave us exposed to it happening in another way?

I've kind of suggested that perhaps we should have standardized sentencing in order to alleviate this bias but absolutely no one would go for it in this country.

Is "standardized sentencing" constitutional?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

99.9% of federal crimes are NOT federal crimes.


.

So is that a yes or a no?

 

[Crick]

99.9% of federal crimes are NOT federal crimes.
.

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[EriktheRed]

I was thinking that in court cases that can set precedence about illegal immigration should we remove judges that are hispanic? This sounds kind of racist but we are constantly told that white people can't sit on jury because the accused is black so why can't we do the same thing for Hispanic judges?

Why can't Trump ask that the judge in Trump U case recurse himself because he is a member of La Raza which translates into 'the race'?

Because you're a dumbass.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I was thinking that in court cases that can set precedence about illegal immigration should we remove judges that are hispanic? This sounds kind of racist but we are constantly told that white people can't sit on jury because the accused is black so why can't we do the same thing for Hispanic judges?

Why can't Trump ask that the judge in Trump U case recurse himself because he is a member of La Raza which translates into 'the race'?

Only people who are members of racist organizations like the NAACP, KKK, la Raza, etc.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is an outright lie: "we are constantly told that white people can't sit on jury because the accused is black . . .".

What you are trying to say is that blacks cannot be excluded from juries, and that makes you mad.

What makes you mad is to many white people in this country. You are afraid they might crush the pure racial proletariat that is composed of non-whites.

Jake is just so angry that he was born a white coward.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

I was thinking that in court cases that can set precedence about illegal immigration should we remove judges that are hispanic? This sounds kind of racist but we are constantly told that white people can't sit on jury because the accused is black so why can't we do the same thing for Hispanic judges?

Why can't Trump ask that the judge in Trump U case recurse himself because he is a member of La Raza which translates into 'the race'?

Any judge who is accused of having a conflict of interest in any case can and should recuse himself from the case to avoid any improprieties, thus preventing a possible overturning of the verdict upon appeal. Trump's lawyers can't accuse the judge of this, but Trump can, because he isn't bound by law. Once there is an accusation, his lawyers can file for his recusal.

But nothing happens to the defendant in a case who raises specious, racist, damaging objections without proof because he has an extreme interest to prevent his case being considered under RICO, which could bring criminal charges alongside racketeering charges.

Donald Trump also knows that Curiel has an ethical duty to not respond and if he did it would be grounds to recuse himself. So Trump gets to change public opinion towards Judge Curiel, without worry as to how damaged the reputation of a Federal jurist may get while making a strong case for his own personal benefit.

 

[whitehall]

Remove? The post indicates a profound (typical?) left wing ignorance of the legal system. Judges are often recused from a case if the defendant can show personal bias by a judge. In this case where the judge is a member of a race based (La Raza) Hispanic organization allegedly dedicated to open borders and Trump is the target of radical (La Raza) thugs the bias issue should be a slam dunk if the feds were playing by the rules.