ChatterBank1 min ago
Is Donald Trump Justified Here?
Donald Trump has said that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had "an absolute conflict" in presiding over the litigation on the Trump University case, given that he was "of Mexican heritage" and a member of a Latino lawyers' association.
Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. "I'm building a wall. It's an inherent conflict of interest," Mr. Trump said.
Is this stance understandable, or an indication of his true racist self?
http://
Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. "I'm building a wall. It's an inherent conflict of interest," Mr. Trump said.
Is this stance understandable, or an indication of his true racist self?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Jackdaw33
This is the way I see it - it would have been wiser for Trump to say silent, and let the case be heard by Curiel (I almost certain that as this is a civil case, no jury would be involved).
Then if the decision went against him - he could get his lawyers to go over the judicial decision with a fine tooth comb, looking for any hint of bias.
It would have to be done after the event, not before.
You can't just assume someone's integrity based on their race, and as Gromit has pointed out, the law in the U.S. doesn't allow it anyway.
This is the way I see it - it would have been wiser for Trump to say silent, and let the case be heard by Curiel (I almost certain that as this is a civil case, no jury would be involved).
Then if the decision went against him - he could get his lawyers to go over the judicial decision with a fine tooth comb, looking for any hint of bias.
It would have to be done after the event, not before.
You can't just assume someone's integrity based on their race, and as Gromit has pointed out, the law in the U.S. doesn't allow it anyway.
I can answer the question if I must spell it out. A judge with Mexican heritage is to preside over a case involving a man who recently said he'd like to build a wall to keep out the Mexicans. You lot really cannot see that is a conflict of interest? really? be honest with yourself! What if a gay judge was to preside over a case where the defendant had said something anti gay? would that not be the same thing?
sp, //I've not actually heard any opposing argument. //
The opposing argument has been offered several times - in fact it is contained within YOUR op where you ask the question "Is this stance understandable?" The answer is "Yes, it is understandable and for the reasons given. Other people can hardly be at fault if you choose not to listen.
The opposing argument has been offered several times - in fact it is contained within YOUR op where you ask the question "Is this stance understandable?" The answer is "Yes, it is understandable and for the reasons given. Other people can hardly be at fault if you choose not to listen.
TTT
What if a gay judge was to preside over a case where the defendant had said something anti gay? would that not be the same thing?
Yes exactly!
And in that situation, Trump again wouldn't have a leg to stand on...because he's already made several anti-gay statements.
Basically, if Trump wants to exclude all the people who he's spoken out against in the past 18 months, the only person who might possibly be acceptable to hear his case is Boss Hogg from the Dukes of Hazzard.
What if a gay judge was to preside over a case where the defendant had said something anti gay? would that not be the same thing?
Yes exactly!
And in that situation, Trump again wouldn't have a leg to stand on...because he's already made several anti-gay statements.
Basically, if Trump wants to exclude all the people who he's spoken out against in the past 18 months, the only person who might possibly be acceptable to hear his case is Boss Hogg from the Dukes of Hazzard.
not an awfull lot of light in this discussion
Trump seems to be treating the judge as a juror - it might be sensible to exclude a juror ( in the US) on these grounds...
but how do you recuse a judge ?
well this is not the way to do it
https:/
[ mini Jay stone walls on the point ]
however here is a useful editorial from the Law Socitey on the english position
http://
and for a start you apply to the judge and not make a media spectacle of it all.
and this happened in the UK - Lord Hoff and amnesty international springs to mind
http://
sozza to bring a few facts into this discussion
what is the american state law on this - o god knows
Trump seems to be treating the judge as a juror - it might be sensible to exclude a juror ( in the US) on these grounds...
but how do you recuse a judge ?
well this is not the way to do it
https:/
[ mini Jay stone walls on the point ]
however here is a useful editorial from the Law Socitey on the english position
http://
and for a start you apply to the judge and not make a media spectacle of it all.
and this happened in the UK - Lord Hoff and amnesty international springs to mind
http://
sozza to bring a few facts into this discussion
what is the american state law on this - o god knows
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
Any Word Experts Out There......?
Technology14 mins ago
So What Do Our Resident Bocialivts...
News22 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.