Jake Tapper nails Trump on "Mexican" judge comments in utterly mad interview

[dannno]

Your ignorance is simply astounding. Why don't you just admit your comparison was garbage?

Because the reason you claimed it was garbage is that Judges and juries are different. In fact both are supposed to go into a case without bias and that is the only thing that is important in this scenario. So far you haven't proven that my comparison was garbage, all you have done is said it is garbage. Big difference.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

So go post a thread about it and maybe there will be a discussion. Having said that, I haven't watched those videos but two wrongs don't make a right.

Are you really missing the point this much? It's not about two wrongs making a right or a lack of discussion, it's about the blatant double standard that exists.

Donald Trump accuses a Mestizo judge of bias because of some fishy rulings and suspicious associations, he's a horrible racist and the entire Republican establishment decries his comments. "Democrats are the real racists after all!"

Numerous progressives and leftist news sources accuse white judges of bias based on NOTHING, and people either agree or don't care. The judge doesn't even have to be presiding over a case with a black defendant; if he just gives a white defendant too lenient a sentence, he's a racist who would have thrown the book at a black guy.

It's insane.

 

[nikcers]

Personally I don't even support Trump as a Presidential candidate. I'm actually 'trolling' against Trump,

The more you post stuff like this, the more it makes me want to vote against Trump in spite.

 

[susano]

Couple things.. first off, a judge has to conduct a trial according to certain standards and has to justify many of the involved decisions. Failing to do so could result in an appeal throwing the trial out and professional/legal sanctions for misconduct. Judges aren't just wizards who can make any crazy decision they want. The same types of checks on accountability and adherence to the rules exist to protect Trump from Hispanic judges as do protecting him from a Hispanic surgeon doing his surgery or a Hispanic accountant managing his money.

And as an aside....what's that say about Trump's view of his own proposals? Apparently there's something about them he expects to deeply offend a certain race of people, so much that he fears professional judges will risk their careers just to get back at him. He must be aware of something really wrong with it.

Think of it this way, to see the insanity of this situatio...are defendants in all trials now somehow entitled to judges with backgrounds and beliefs similar to thiers? An openly racist black guy can't have a white judge, a pedophile can't have a judge who has children and openly cares about them, a skinny suspect can't have a fat judge? This is not Trump requesting removal of a single judge with a specific conflict uniquely deleterious to him, it is Trump requesting installation of a type of judge uniquely favorable to him.

Judges are rarely held accountable and most run the courtroom like their personal little fiefdom. My God, the list is endless of bias judges denying critical witnesses and testimony in cases where people have been sentenced to death. The judiciary is as corrupt as anything else. Many years ago I knew of a case where the judge said, "Nobody's going to bring up the constitution in MY courtroom". That was a tax protestor case and the defendant was convicted after many motions and testimony were denied. I experienced having a civil suit dismissed on summary judgment because the judge didn't want a trial cluttering up the schedule. I couldn't afford an appeal. This kind of stuff happens all the time.

Of course, Trump knows people are pissed about his proposals. There's a huge battle going on over US sovereignty v. open borders. Jeez, it's a constant topic on news and talk shows. It was a big topic long before Trump entered the race but is even more so now that a candidate has taken the stances he has. La Raza opposes US sovereignty and deportation of any illegals and the judge is not only a member but presented a law school scholarship to an illegal. The same debate is taking place in Europe, btw. It's the NWO internationalists v. those who oppose them.

Why shouldn't defendants more aggressively vet the judges who hold so much power over the outcome of their cases and even their lives? As I said, prejudice judges have put innocent people on death row.

None of this is my defending Trump U., btw.

ETA:

This is not Trump requesting removal of a single judge with a specific conflict uniquely deleterious to him, it is Trump requesting installation of a type of judge uniquely favorable to him.

Really? I'm not even sure they've asked for the removal of this judge. Trump may be just bitching about him. I sure haven't heard of their requesting any particular other judge. If this judge were out, another liberal judge could easily replace him.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I watched Jake Tapper today. Not sure that I had ever actually watched his show. What a disgusting Hillary shill.

They have no shame. After hammering Ben Carson (and Trump indirectly) about his claim that the Judge was biased, they shamelessly pivot and insinuate that the Judge in the Stanford rape trail was biased because he was white and the accused was white.

All in preparation for the Hillary push. Anything they can do to ramp up a gender war and race war.

 

[MelissaWV]

If nobody wants to answer, I'll take that as an "I win the thread"


Is an innocent black man who points out his all white jury was biased against him a racist? Yes or No.

If that is his only basis for claiming bias, yes, he is racist. His claims of bias should have far more basis than the fact the jury was of a different race. It carries the implication that the jurors were not fair simply because of the color of their skin. It's an assumption they're unable to set aside an inherent bias they carry only due to being white.

That doesn't mean it isn't presumed to be a factor. When lawyers are going through potential jurors, they often remove some people due purely to assumptions based on demographics. Note that this happens entirely separately from removals for cause.

 

[MelissaWV]

I watched Jake Tapper today. Not sure that I had ever actually watched his show. What a disgusting Hillary shill.

They have no shame. After hammering Ben Carson (and Trump indirectly) about his claim that the Judge was biased, they shamelessly pivot and insinuate that the Judge in the Stanford rape trail was biased because he was white and the accused was white.

All in preparation for the Hillary push. Anything they can do to ramp up a gender war and race war.

Eh in general, people who lose a case are going to cry foul about the judge. It's just that with social media and all the manufactured outrage about outcomes, the prosecution (or those who support the prosecution's side) are just as likely to cry about it. The Stanford verdict was pretty awful, however it's not the first time that's happened, nor will it be the last, and it likely had nothing to do with bias on the part of the judge.

 

[fcreature]

Donald Trump accuses a Mestizo judge of bias because of some fishy rulings and suspicious associations, he's a horrible racist and the entire Republican establishment decries his comments. "Democrats are the real racists after all!"

Your biggest problem is that isn't really what happened. The claimed bias wasn't due to "fishy rulings" and the claims of suspicious associations only came after the fact. And even then those claims were lies.

It's insane.

Numerous progressives and leftist news sources accuse white judges of bias based on NOTHING, and people either agree or don't care. The judge doesn't even have to be presiding over a case with a black defendant; if he just gives a white defendant too lenient a sentence, he's a racist who would have thrown the book at a black guy.

I agree. So what?

 

[fcreature]

If that is his only basis for claiming bias, yes, he is racist. His claims of bias should have far more basis than the fact the jury was of a different race. It carries the implication that the jurors were not fair simply because of the color of their skin. It's an assumption they're unable to set aside an inherent bias they carry only due to being white.

That doesn't mean it isn't presumed to be a factor. When lawyers are going through potential jurors, they often remove some people due purely to assumptions based on demographics. Note that this happens entirely separately from removals for cause.

This.

The problem with the loaded question (which you refuse to correct for some reason) is that you are already telling us that he's innocent and thus the verdict was incorrect and unjust. This leads to an implication or at least the suggestion of a higher probably of bias from the jurors due to race.

If the only evidence of there being bias is that he did not get a favorable verdict, then yes, it is a racist statement because the reasoning is entirely based on the jury being white.

 

[Bryan]

Thread has devolved into insult match.
Go read the guidelines as this won't stand here. Some posts deleted. More action later.