it's not his race/nationality it's that he's apart of a group that wants to boycott trump and calls him racist, etc as I mentioned earlier.
do you think the least partial lawyer to judge Trump would be apart of a group that wants to boycott him? Are there not better Judges suited for this case?

This post was edited by majorblood on Jun 9 2016 04:15pm

so guilt by association? another dirty road to walk down.

You're still referencing his personal views on unrelated topics to the case at hand. Use that same logic on personal feelings against anyone who is a notorious criminal. But why would that matter, no one cares if someone like Timmy Mcveigh gets a fair judge, just the Orange Demagogue right?

Those boycotts came as a result of Trumps national exposure, which means with the polarity of our current political climate most people are either for or against Trump, with a strong opinion about him. By your standard all unfit.



Of course there are better suited judges, and worse suited judges. Thats simply a logical use of numbers.

What matters is if he should be disqualified as a judge. Setting a precedent that you can bitch until you get a new judge because they don't like you is not a good precedent, plain and simple.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 9 2016 04:17pm

guilty of what? it's about being impartial, not sentencing the judge of something. The topics aren't unrelated, the subject is Trump -- how is Trump unrelated to Trump?

Do you believe being apart of an association that supports illegal immigrants, wants to boycott trump, etc has absolutely no affect on the Judge's potential bias? How?


It seems to me you are agreeing the Judge may be bias now but just don't think that's important.

This post was edited by majorblood on Jun 9 2016 04:24pm

Everyone has biases, all judges have biases. Thats a plain fact. Those biases either do or do not disqualify them from presiding over cases. In this case i believe it does not.

If someone had a daughter who was raped they would still be able to preside over rape cases, even though logically their bias could result in unjustly harsh sentences if guilt is proven. But they aren't disqualified in cases like these because they make decisions from precedence and interpretation of the law as it applies to the case, they don't make wild random decisions based on their biases.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 9 2016 04:28pm

Those personal views are some of the exact cases included in the law, you worthless ostrich.

In fact, the law only requires appearance of partiality.

Curiel has supported illegal aliens in a racist fashion for years.

Resubmit in a coherent fashion, preferably with links so i can read someone elses writing rather than try to interpret yours.

I don't think this is a reasonable stance here as there is a direct conflict of interest between the Judge and Trump and therefore it is reasonable to say this constitutes as the appearance of impropriety

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455

Since you're too retarded to google it, you literal invalid.

but what about trump being a racist? oh what he's saying isn't racist? yeah but it's a dog whistle for racists...

Liberals: No way Trump is getting the Hispanic vote with his comments about Mexico
Trump: This judge may be biased against me because of my comments about Mexico
Liberals: RRRAAAAAACCCCIIIISSSSSSSTTTTTTTTT