3 ms·

Can you explain the problem with Trump's comment with the judge for me please? Assuming that Trump thinks/ knows he's being offensive to Mexican at large, would

by NhanH 10y ago

Can you explain the problem with Trump's comment with the judge for me please? Assuming that Trump thinks/ knows he's being offensive to Mexican at large, wouldn't the idea of a judge, even an American one, with some relations to Mexico might not be impartial toward him be a reasonable idea? Is it the notion of a judge being unprofessional to the point of biased an unacceptable thing to imply?

SamBam 10y ago
For the same reason we don't say that a black judge is unqualified to judge on issues regarding race. Do you agree that such a suggestion in that case would be out of line?
- NhanH 10y ago
  I actually didn't know, so I went ahead and did a quick search on your example. On [0], it does mention a case with that situation. > In 1974, Federal Judge Leon Higginbotham issued his decision in Comm. of Pa. v. Local 542, Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, explaining why he as an African American judge with a history of active involvement in the civil rights struggle was not obligated to recuse himself from presiding over litigation concerning claims of racial discrimination. Further thought and I agree that the judge should not need to recuse himself from said case (in your question). However, that's a distinction on whether the suggestion itself is out of line. In the quoted snippet, the judge did have to point out an explanation for his sitting it, so at the least, there seems to be some consideration for the suggestion. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification
  - SamBam 10y ago
    It is out of line, because the suggestion is only being made to the black (or Mexican, or female, or...) judge. Has a white judge ever needed to explain why he didn't excuse himself on a case regarding race? Why not? Why is the white judge the default "impartial" judge, and the black (or Mexican) judge the one who is assumed to harbor bias? (Edit: An in your example, it's really the "active involvement in civil rights struggle" that is more pertinent, not his race. We judge people by what they do, not the color of their skin or the origin of their grandparents.)
robbiemitchell 10y ago
In addition to the point raised by another reply, here's a thought exercise: who can stand fit to judge someone who has made defamatory remarks about everyone? Is the way out of a case to simply say something negative about every possible judge? (No.) My understanding is that judges, particularly at the higher levels, are assumed to be capable of remaining impartial unless there is a specific conflict of interest. Specific, like "I was involved in this case as a judge at the circuit level" or "I was an investor in this company" etc.

by NhanH 10y ago

SamBam 10y ago

For the same reason we don't say that a black judge is unqualified to judge on issues regarding race. Do you agree that such a suggestion in that case would be out of line?

NhanH 10y ago
I actually didn't know, so I went ahead and did a quick search on your example. On [0], it does mention a case with that situation. > In 1974, Federal Judge Leon Higginbotham issued his decision in Comm. of Pa. v. Local 542, Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, explaining why he as an African American judge with a history of active involvement in the civil rights struggle was not obligated to recuse himself from presiding over litigation concerning claims of racial discrimination. Further thought and I agree that the judge should not need to recuse himself from said case (in your question). However, that's a distinction on whether the suggestion itself is out of line. In the quoted snippet, the judge did have to point out an explanation for his sitting it, so at the least, there seems to be some consideration for the suggestion. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification
- SamBam 10y ago
  It is out of line, because the suggestion is only being made to the black (or Mexican, or female, or...) judge. Has a white judge ever needed to explain why he didn't excuse himself on a case regarding race? Why not? Why is the white judge the default "impartial" judge, and the black (or Mexican) judge the one who is assumed to harbor bias? (Edit: An in your example, it's really the "active involvement in civil rights struggle" that is more pertinent, not his race. We judge people by what they do, not the color of their skin or the origin of their grandparents.)

robbiemitchell 10y ago

In addition to the point raised by another reply, here's a thought exercise: who can stand fit to judge someone who has made defamatory remarks about everyone? Is the way out of a case to simply say something negative about every possible judge? (No.) My understanding is that judges, particularly at the higher levels, are assumed to be capable of remaining impartial unless there is a specific conflict of interest. Specific, like "I was involved in this case as a judge at the circuit level" or "I was an investor in this company" etc.