Paul Ryan: Trump's attack on judge textbook racism

"I disavow those comments. I regret those comments that he made. Claiming a person can't do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment. I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It's absolutely unacceptable."

Source - http://cnn.it/25KmFVw


---

Seems obvious to me at this point that Ryan doesn't have much time for Trump at all and doesn't want to support him but he will back him over Hillary. Messy state of affairs for the GOP Phone Post 3.0

I'll admit that I haven't followed all of this, but is Trump way off base with this?

He has a hard stance on illegal immigration and is being raked over the coals for it, and the Judge is Mexican American and a prominent member of the Latino lawyers association. The Judge certainly is proud of his heritage.

I would hope that all judges or anyone in a position of power could overlook their personal views and judge a case based on facts, but it doesn't always happen.

Trump is going to look into having another judge preside.


Then there is this:

Legal experts agreed that defendants have the First Amendment freedom to express opinions about a judge hearing their case—as long as they aren’t disruptive in the courtroom.

“It is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions,” Justice Hugo Black wrote in a 1941 Supreme Court decision that threw out contempt convictions of a newspaper publisher and a labor leader for speaking out on pending litigation.

Can't wait for him to denounce BLM as racist for saying white police chiefs can't do their job!

Lol Paul Ryan better stop. He won't win reelection like this. The Trumpers are coming . Phone Post 3.0

If judges are so impartial and known to be "by the book" why then are both parties fighting so hard to win this race on the basis of who gets to nominate a Supreme Court Justices? If political ideology doesn't matter in how one interprets the law, then there should be no difference in a Republican nominated judge and a Democrat nominated judge right? After all, it is about the evidence and law, not heritage, not race, not gender, and not political identification, right?

Of course not, this is why it MATTERS who nominates a judge and what their background is. It just so happens this specific judge is a very strong advocate of open borders while being pro-illegal immigration. Trump holds very anti-open border positions and has made some very strong, and to many, abrasive comments about illegal aliens. Of course this very politically active Mexican judge would use this opportunity to "stick it to him."

What I am suggesting here isn't even controversial, In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, then an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge "may and will make a difference in our judging."

This is exactly why both parties want to be in control of who sits on the Supreme Court. Each side does not want to essentially be Trump, facing judges who absolutely despise their political philosophies. Each side knows such judges will go out of their way to rule, not so much on the evidence or the letter of the law, but rather on political grounds and ideology. Trump is right here, like it or not.  

The Power Double - 

"I disavow those comments. I regret those comments that he made. Claiming a person can't do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment. I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It's absolutely unacceptable."

Source - http://cnn.it/25KmFVw


---

Seems obvious to me at this point that Ryan doesn't have much time for Trump at all and doesn't want to support him but he will back him over Hillary. Messy state of affairs for the GOP Phone Post 3.0



Remember... there is a political element to this.



Ryan secretly wants Hillary to win as that will set him up perfectly for his run in 2020.



He has played this pretty well.



Held off on endorsing Trump (which is pretty unheard of for a Speaker of the House) as he wanted to look strong and also appeal to the establishment.



Ends up reluctantly endorsing Trump (as to not completely isolate himself from the Trump fanatics).



Is able to speak out when Trump does outrageous things.



In the end - Ryan is just setting himself up for the next run...

jcblass - 


If judges are so impartial and known to be "by the book" why then are both parties fighting so hard to win this race on the basis of who gets to nominate a Supreme Court Justices? If political ideology doesn't matter in how one interprets the law, then there should be no difference in a Republican nominated judge and a Democrat nominated judge right? After all, it is about the evidence and law, not heritage, not race, not gender, and not political identification, right?



Of course not, this is why it MATTERS who nominates a judge and what their background is. It just so happens this specific judge is a very strong advocate of open borders while being pro-illegal immigration. Trump holds very anti-open border positions and has made some very strong, and to many, abrasive comments about illegal aliens. Of course this very politically active Mexican judge would use this opportunity to "stick it to him."



What I am suggesting here isn't even controversial, In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, then an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge "may and will make a difference in our judging."



This is exactly why both parties want to be in control of who sits on the Supreme Court. Each side does not want to essentially be Trump, facing judges who absolutely despise their political philosophies. Each side knows such judges will go out of their way to rule, not so much on the evidence or the letter of the law, but rather on political grounds and ideology. Trump is right here, like it or not.  


Great post.

sparkyman - 
jcblass - 

If judges are so impartial and known to be "by the book" why then are both parties fighting so hard to win this race on the basis of who gets to nominate a Supreme Court Justices? If political ideology doesn't matter in how one interprets the law, then there should be no difference in a Republican nominated judge and a Democrat nominated judge right? After all, it is about the evidence and law, not heritage, not race, not gender, and not political identification, right?

Of course not, this is why it MATTERS who nominates a judge and what their background is. It just so happens this specific judge is a very strong advocate of open borders while being pro-illegal immigration. Trump holds very anti-open border positions and has made some very strong, and to many, abrasive comments about illegal aliens. Of course this very politically active Mexican judge would use this opportunity to "stick it to him."

What I am suggesting here isn't even controversial, In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, then an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge "may and will make a difference in our judging."

This is exactly why both parties want to be in control of who sits on the Supreme Court. Each side does not want to essentially be Trump, facing judges who absolutely despise their political philosophies. Each side knows such judges will go out of their way to rule, not so much on the evidence or the letter of the law, but rather on political grounds and ideology. Trump is right here, like it or not.  

<br />
<span class="User-166984" id="userPost57345948">Great post.</span></blockquote>


Would you want to be the guy who was pulled over on an open container charge, standing before a judge whose kid was killed by a drunk driver? Do you think that life experience would not affect how he hands down his decisions on your case? Moreover, what if you could have another judge, who while in college also had an open container violation and learned his lesson, do you think his rulings would differ from the first judge. I would argue yes.

This isn't so much that the judge is Mexican, but rather the judge is politically "pro-mexico" and is absolutely enraged by everything Trump stands for.

There is a reason why the court allows for a "change of venue." It is understood that things totally unrelated to the evidence and the rule of law can seep into decisions and the court system. In an attempt to "remove" any conflicting issues between a defendent and the courts, cases will often be moved far away.  Trump is simply maintaining he might do better if the sitting judge was not a member of La Raza, didn't hate his political views, and was not so emotially tied to Mexican forigen policy. 

Haha should have known. Lyin Paul Ryan am I right guys? He's a sleaze. He's totally stupid Phone Post 3.0

lionsoul -
The Power Double - 

"I disavow those comments. I regret those comments that he made. Claiming a person can't do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment. I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It's absolutely unacceptable."

Source - http://cnn.it/25KmFVw


---

Seems obvious to me at this point that Ryan doesn't have much time for Trump at all and doesn't want to support him but he will back him over Hillary. Messy state of affairs for the GOP Phone Post 3.0



Remember... there is a political element to this.



Ryan secretly wants Hillary to win as that will set him up perfectly for his run in 2020.



He has played this pretty well.



Held off on endorsing Trump (which is pretty unheard of for a Speaker of the House) as he wanted to look strong and also appeal to the establishment.



Ends up reluctantly endorsing Trump (as to not completely isolate himself from the Trump fanatics).



Is able to speak out when Trump does outrageous things.



In the end - Ryan is just setting himself up for the next run...

Interesting theory

So who exactly is qualified to be a judge in Trump's case?  Only a white Christian judge who only belongs to conservative groups and has never donated to any of Trump's primary opponents and who doesn't mind sexist remarks about women and who was appointed by a Republican?  Give me a break.

The attorneys in the case have never filed a motion for recusal.  If Trump thinks he has a case for recusal, he should order his attorneys to file a motion.  The radio replayed an interview with Trump's attorney from months ago in which the attorney said he would not file such a motion. 

You do not get to make inflammatory remarks about a judge and then have him recused because he will be biased against you because of them.  Do you understand what chaos would result from that?

dabigchet - easily the most overtly racist thing trump has said since the campaign started. his lack of self control in this situation should be very, very concerning to everyone who supports him.

but it probably isn't. because they have made up their minds and nothing is going to convince them differently. trump was right when he said he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose support.


The term Trump Democrat is going to be a thing, and I'm going to be one of them.  He's the opposite of Reagan.

dabigchet - easily the most overtly racist thing trump has said since the campaign started. his lack of self control in this situation should be very, very concerning to everyone who supports him.

but it probably isn't. because they have made up their minds and nothing is going to convince them differently. trump was right when he said he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose support.
Hey Fucktard, who should we support then? Hillary? You fucktard. Phone Post 3.0

EluThingol -
dabigchet - easily the most overtly racist thing trump has said since the campaign started. his lack of self control in this situation should be very, very concerning to everyone who supports him.

but it probably isn't. because they have made up their minds and nothing is going to convince them differently. trump was right when he said he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose support.
Hey Fucktard, who should we support then? Hillary? You fucktard. Phone Post 3.0
Anyone but Trump. Picture him dealing with international leaders. Europe, India, China, Iran, whoever you want. Or an international crisis. He's a business heir who's made it this far in the process on the back of some sort of cultish momentum. It's like a section of America thinks movies are real life and they want a loose cannon in there calling the shots and making things exciting. He's not cut out to be President. It's already causing concern internationally. The guy has been endorsed by one leader at least. Kim Jong fucking un Phone Post 3.0

They are going to give lip service to Trump, but nobody is going to help him with money. Which will be funny, Trump not competing due to lack of money.

If you have been watching CNN, you know Anderson Cooper has been reporting about the discovery that a sitting judge is actually a robot. His name is Gonzalo Curiel and he is presiding over the Trump University case.

Curiel looks human on the outside, and he has passed as human for decades. But Cooper made it clear in his interviews yesterday that while science understands that 100% of humans are biased about just about everything, this robot judge is not susceptible to being influenced by his life experiences. It sounds deeply implausible, but no one on CNN challenged Cooper’s implication that Judge Curiel is the only bias-free entity in the universe. Ergo, he must be a robot.

Anyway, lots of folks on Twitter are asking me why Trump would accuse the robot judge of being “Mexican” when that is obviously a racist thing to say. Did Trump make a huge mistake, or is it some sort of clever persuasion thing?

Let’s dig into that.

For starters, it isn’t appropriate to label people – or robots – “Mexicans” if those people or robots are created in America. For example, I have an American friend with Italian heritage who often refers to herself as “Italian,” and obviously that is a case of self-racism. I find it offensive.

This problem isn’t limited to my one friend. I also know an American who calls herself Croatian and another American who calls himself Indian. I can barely stand to be in the same room with those racists. Worse yet, they seem unclear about the distinction between their ethnicity and the country where their parents grew up. It isn’t the same thing, people!

But right-and-wrong aside, is it a good legal strategy for Trump to sow doubts about the objectivity of the robot judge? It seems to me that the trial can go one of two ways.

1. Trump wins in court, in which case, Trump wins.

2. Trump loses in court, in which case, Trump says Democrats rigged the system to give him an unfair trial. We’re already primed to believe it.

From a legal perspective, race is not a reason to remove a judge. I haven’t heard anyone argue otherwise. But from a persuasion perspective, Trump is setting the stage for whatever is to come. So yes, it is smart, albeit offensive.

Some have asked why Trump’s legal team hasn’t asked for the judge to be replaced. My guess is that they want to keep him because they expect to lose the case and they plan to pin it on the judge. That’s how I would play it.

The one small problem with Trump’s strategy of questioning the robot’s objectivity is that it creates one more point of confirmation bias that Trump is a racist. Here’s what we have so far:

1. Trump wants to protect the melting pot that is America from the non-Americans who want to get into the country illegally. That’s the job of the President, and yet…it sounds a bit racist. That’s point-one of confirmation bias.

2. Trump said immigrants from Mexico are rapists. Under normal circumstances, a listener would understand him to mean that the socioeconomic circumstances of being an immigrant are correlated with higher-than-average crime rates of all types. But because you think Trump is a racist, your cognitive dissonance turned it into an accusation that all Mexican men, women, children, and unborn babies are rapists.

To make things worse, Trump is pro-life. The implication is that Trump believes one-month-old fetuses from Mexico somehow escape the womb at night to do their raping. It sounds implausible, but once you know Trump is a racist who thinks every single Mexican is a rapist, you have to assume he was talking about the fetuses too. That’s a tell for confirmation bias.

3. During one CNN interview Trump did not disavow the KKK in a clear and quick fashion that viewers expected. He did disavow the KKK and David Duke before the interview, and plenty of times afterwards. But that one time on live television he didn’t hear the question (he says) and he responded inadequately. It seems implausible that a candidate for president would intentionally avoid disavowing the KKK on live TV, but once you assume Trump is a racist, confirmation bias kicks in, and you assume he did just that.

4. Trump suggested a temporary ban on Muslim immigration until we can figure out what’s going on. That sounds totally racist…unless you know that Islam is open to all ethnicities…and as practiced in many places is incompatible with the Constitution of the United States. And ISIS is trying to get terrorists into the country by posing as immigrants. Viewed in isolation, the ban on Muslim immigration is offensive and problematic. But viewed in context with all of the other confirmation bias about Trump, it turns into evidence of racism.

5. And now Trump believes a judge might be biased because his parents grew up in Mexico. On one hand, every person in the world thinks that is a legitimate risk. On the other hand, when viewed in context of all of Trump’s other confirmation bias, it looks racist as hell.

I’m probably leaving out a few points of confirmation bias. But you get the point. Once you see Trump as a probable racist, you see “evidence” everywhere, even if there is none. That’s confirmation bias.

Judges have bias too. Except for the robot kind like Curiel.

For new readers, I endorse Hillary Clinton, but only for my my personal safety. I don’t agree with any of the candidates on policies.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145560612726/the-robot-judge

dabigchet - easily the most overtly racist thing trump has said since the campaign started. his lack of self control in this situation should be very, very concerning to everyone who supports him.

but it probably isn't. because they have made up their minds and nothing is going to convince them differently. trump was right when he said he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose support.

He would have still killed less americans that Hillary!

rimshot

thesleeper - They are going to give lip service to Trump, but nobody is going to help him with money. Which will be funny, Trump not competing due to lack of money.

You are correct in that this is how the leader of the most powerful nation on earth is elected.

Those with the most rich backers.

But, but LA Raza!

AlphaSlap - 
lionsoul -
The Power Double - 

"I disavow those comments. I regret those comments that he made. Claiming a person can't do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment. I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It's absolutely unacceptable."

Source - http://cnn.it/25KmFVw


---

Seems obvious to me at this point that Ryan doesn't have much time for Trump at all and doesn't want to support him but he will back him over Hillary. Messy state of affairs for the GOP Phone Post 3.0



Remember... there is a political element to this.



Ryan secretly wants Hillary to win as that will set him up perfectly for his run in 2020.



He has played this pretty well.



Held off on endorsing Trump (which is pretty unheard of for a Speaker of the House) as he wanted to look strong and also appeal to the establishment.



Ends up reluctantly endorsing Trump (as to not completely isolate himself from the Trump fanatics).



Is able to speak out when Trump does outrageous things.



In the end - Ryan is just setting himself up for the next run...

Interesting theory



Not really a theory.



Most political commentators have said that Ryan's big goal is to run in the next election cycle.



It's in his interest for Trump to lose.



At the same time - it would be unheard of for a Speaker of the House not to support the party candidate.



He also doesn't want to piss off the Trump supporters.



So he is playing this perfectly... from a political perspective.