Trump's personal attacks on judge spark GOP concerns

[Boon Mee]

Make America Great Again! Elect Donald J. Trump!

[keemapoot]

Don't give him rope, give him a bigger megaphone. He's great at showing the GOP's dirty underwear, .....at showing their secret foundational pillars.

Conservative Meg Whitman calling him Mussolini and voting for Clinton, GOP donors turning their backs, Romney calling him and racist and misogynist, Utah (the most Republican State in the nation likely voting for Clinton) and people like Paul Ryan and others reluctantly and tepidly showing support shows that those pillars, which used to be strong, stable and honorable, may indeed be decayed.

That once proud party, of which I was a member when it stood for upstanding values is gone. One can only imagine the collective moans as every distinguished GOP President from Reagan to Lincoln turns in his grave.

[Publicus]

Mitt Romney, whom I would be willing to bet that every Trump supporter on this thread and forum supported whole-heartedly in the last election, says that Trump will change America with his racism, and that he may vote libertarian. Decent Republicans everywhere are disgusted at the racism displayed by this neanderthal. What is surprising is that other folks lack the decency to call him what he is.

"I don't want to see a president of the United States saying things which change the character of the generations of Americans that are following. Presidents have an impact on the nature of our nation, and trickle-down racism, trickle-down bigotry, trickle-down misogyny, all these things are extraordinarily dangerous to the heart and character of America."

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/mitt-romney-donald-trump-racism/

Senior party figures, especially those facing close races in November, appear to be distancing themselves formally from the Trump campaign. Romney has already made it clear that he will be skipping the GOP convention in Cleveland in July, joining other former Republican presidents and presidential candidates, including senator John McCain, and former presidents George W and George HW Bush, staying away from Trump’s inauguration as the GOP’s standard-bearer.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/10/donald-trump-mitt-romney-vote-libertarian-gop-split

1964 redux.

As a number of us are aware, in that year the Republican Senator Barry Goldwater (of Arizona) and his gang of radical rightwingers seized control of the Republican party primary process and its convention to win the nomination.

They proceeded to get blown out in the general election.

Goldwater got 38% of the (un)popular vote, won six states, and he was left crushed with only 52 electoral college votes (270 needed to win).

The institutional Republican party on through to its rank and file abandoned Goldwater and the far out whackjob right wing. The issues included Goldwater -- similar to Trump -- saying crazy things about nuclear weapons and about the Constitution.

Goldwater's ideas were whacky but they guy himself was reserved and restrained, a serious man. The only thing serious about Donald Trump is that he is seriously a wild man ignoramus.

Goldwater's enthusiastic supporters were zealots. Trump's supporters adore his Mussolini Strongman Fury.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Publicus

[boomerangutang]

Ironically, Hillary was a 'Goldwater Girl' in her youth. Similarly, the first time I registered to vote, I registered Republican. Silly me. I've since become a Green Party member, and now Democrat.

[boomerangutang]

Mitt Romney, whom I would be willing to bet that every Trump supporter on this thread and forum supported whole-heartedly in the last election, says that Trump will change America with his racism, and that he may vote libertarian. Decent Republicans everywhere are disgusted at the racism displayed by this neanderthal. What is surprising is that other folks lack the decency to call him what he is.

"I don't want to see a president of the United States saying things which change the character of the generations of Americans that are following. Presidents have an impact on the nature of our nation, and trickle-down racism, trickle-down bigotry, trickle-down misogyny, all these things are extraordinarily dangerous to the heart and character of America."

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/mitt-romney-donald-trump-racism/

Senior party figures, especially those facing close races in November, appear to be distancing themselves formally from the Trump campaign. Romney has already made it clear that he will be skipping the GOP convention in Cleveland in July, joining other former Republican presidents and presidential candidates, including senator John McCain, and former presidents George W and George HW Bush, staying away from Trump’s inauguration as the GOP’s standard-bearer.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/10/donald-trump-mitt-romney-vote-libertarian-gop-split

1964 redux.

As a number of us are aware, in that year the Republican Senator Barry Goldwater (of Arizona) and his gang of radical rightwingers seized control of the Republican party primary process and its convention to win the nomination.

They proceeded to get blown out in the general election.

Goldwater got 38% of the (un)popular vote, won six states, and he was left crushed with only 52 electoral college votes (270 needed to win).

The institutional Republican party on through to its rank and file abandoned Goldwater and the far out whackjob right wing. The issues included Goldwater -- similar to Trump -- saying crazy things about nuclear weapons and about the Constitution.

Goldwater.png

Goldwater's ideas were whacky but they guy himself was reserved and restrained, a serious man. The only thing serious about Donald Trump is that he is seriously a wild man ignoramus.

Goldwater's enthusiastic supporters were zealots. Trump's supporters adore his Mussolini Strongman Fury.

Goldwater may have had some whacko fringe ideas, like nuke Hanoi, but at least he was a gentleman. He knew how to behave and was courteous to others. Can't say that about Trump. I wouldn't want Trump giving the commencement speech to a group of 5th graders getting promoted to going to Jr. High School. He's too crude and rude. Bad influence.

[tonray]

Trump's success is just a mirror on America. He is here today because of people who love his off the cuff ideas without any thought behind them. Look at any comment stream after any article on the web....the bozos who post irrational nonsense about nuking the middle east and cutting off China economically are exactly the people who support Trump. The problem for America is that Hilary is as dishonest as the day is long and is a miserable choice to oppose him. He may win because of this...her negative polling is ridiculous.

Again we are faced with 2 choices: 1 who has experience but will maintain the status quo as we watch the country piss down the drain and 1 who has no experience and has shown no enthusiasm for educating himself to any issues facing the country.

Makes me sick to think of this really.

[Jingthing]

The vile monster's negatives are much higher than Hillary Clinton's negatives, which is why she will CREAM him it.

Also, I think our next President Hillary Clinton, coming in with rather low expectations, will surprise people and do quite well.

She will certainly not have President Obama's problem of people thinking he was some kind of demi-God which of course no president could ever live up to.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Jingthing

[ilostmypassword]

Trump's success is just a mirror on America. He is here today because of people who love his off the cuff ideas without any thought behind them. Look at any comment stream after any article on the web....the bozos who post irrational nonsense about nuking the middle east and cutting off China economically are exactly the people who support Trump. The problem for America is that Hilary is as dishonest as the day is long and is a miserable choice to oppose him. He may win because of this...her negative polling is ridiculous.

Again we are faced with 2 choices: 1 who has experience but will maintain the status quo as we watch the country piss down the drain and 1 who has no experience and has shown no enthusiasm for educating himself to any issues facing the country.

Makes me sick to think of this really.

If HRC's negative polling is ridiculous, then Trump's is ridiculouser.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/06/09/hillary-clinton-v-donald-trump-a-look-at-the-numbers/

[sirineou]

Trump's success is just a mirror on America. He is here today because of people who love his off the cuff ideas without any thought behind them. Look at any comment stream after any article on the web....the bozos who post irrational nonsense about nuking the middle east and cutting off China economically are exactly the people who support Trump. The problem for America is that Hilary is as dishonest as the day is long and is a miserable choice to oppose him. He may win because of this...her negative polling is ridiculous.

Again we are faced with 2 choices: 1 who has experience but will maintain the status quo as we watch the country piss down the drain and 1 who has no experience and has shown no enthusiasm for educating himself to any issues facing the country.

Makes me sick to think of this really.

If HRC's negative polling is ridiculous, then Trump's is ridiculouser.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/06/09/hillary-clinton-v-donald-trump-a-look-at-the-numbers/

wait until he goes to work on her

Still Hope for a third party candidate. Bernie my checkbook is still open.

[Publicus]

Trump's success is just a mirror on America. He is here today because of people who love his off the cuff ideas without any thought behind them. Look at any comment stream after any article on the web....the bozos who post irrational nonsense about nuking the middle east and cutting off China economically are exactly the people who support Trump. The problem for America is that Hilary is as dishonest as the day is long and is a miserable choice to oppose him. He may win because of this...her negative polling is ridiculous.

Again we are faced with 2 choices: 1 who has experience but will maintain the status quo as we watch the country piss down the drain and 1 who has no experience and has shown no enthusiasm for educating himself to any issues facing the country.

Makes me sick to think of this really.

While it is hopeless it still hasn't become serious.

Let's go with the one who knows the ABC's of the Constitution which means not attacking federal judges on the basis of ethnicity or national origin.

Significant reforms haven't ever been easy but between HRC and Bernie more will get set right than the 1% will be able to stop.

Donald Trump is a garbage fire. The 800-pound gorilla stomping and crashing through the godzilla towers. The Unique American Mussolini. The choice was never more clear.

[sirineou]

Trump's success is just a mirror on America. He is here today because of people who love his off the cuff ideas without any thought behind them. Look at any comment stream after any article on the web....the bozos who post irrational nonsense about nuking the middle east and cutting off China economically are exactly the people who support Trump. The problem for America is that Hilary is as dishonest as the day is long and is a miserable choice to oppose him. He may win because of this...her negative polling is ridiculous.

Again we are faced with 2 choices: 1 who has experience but will maintain the status quo as we watch the country piss down the drain and 1 who has no experience and has shown no enthusiasm for educating himself to any issues facing the country.

Makes me sick to think of this really.

While it is hopeless it still hasn't become serious.

Let's go with the one who knows the ABC's of the Constitution which means not attacking federal judges on the basis of ethnicity or national origin.

Significant reforms haven't ever been easy but between HRC and Bernie more will get set right than the 1% will be able to stop.

Donald Trump is a garbage fire. The 800-pound gorilla stomping and crashing through the godzilla towers. The Unique American Mussolini. The choice was never more clear.

Again a choice of the lesser evil. lesser evil does not stop it from being evil. I think they are playing a game of bad cop good cop with us, but in the end they are both cops. Perhaps it is time we got wise to the game.

Personalty I do pretty well with the lesser evil, Six digit salary, more than adequate real estate holdings, vested pension with two unions, max t Social security benefits .

It seems I have a good seat on the Titanic, and the lesser evils are driving us toward the iceberg.

Time to change direction,or look for a good lifeboat.

[Linzz]

It could seem from the post that it is this single poster versus the NYT, or one writer at the NYT (who wrote the linked piece in 2009). Either way, the writer in the NYT didn't seem to get red in the face in his piece nor did he seem red in the neck either.

My post is in reply to another poster in the right here and now -- you -- saying Trump is right to attack the judiciary. I don't care about the guy at the NYT nine years ago writing about Justice Sotomayor, nor am I speaking to him (prior to her Scotus nomination).

This attack means the chief job the far out right has is to produce a quote from the US District Court Judge Curiel that says he is a racist. Short of that, the right would need to produce statements by lawyers who've practiced before Judge Curiel that say he's a racist. Short of that and that, the fringe would need to produce statements by the judge or anyone that say or indicates he bases his decisions on anything less than the law. Anything.

The long and the short of it is that no one can prove what the Unique American Mussolini says about Judge Curiel. (None on the fringe note Gonzalo P. Curiel was appointed to his first judgeship, in California by the then Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the famous Republican non-racist and anti-racist pro-rainbow guy.)

Vice President Biden said today Benito's Trump statements against the independence of the judge are "racist." Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said today Mussolini's statements against the judge and his ethnicity are "racist."

Hard to say either VP Biden or Sen Warren get red in the neck about these things.

Thank you for at least attempting to have a discourse with out banging off the walls with your usual rhetoric, except for your usual Benito cleverness which is getting boring now.

You ask for anything.

Curiel as a judge is obliged under law to avoid conflicts of interest and not give the appearance of impropriety.

Curiel was a member of San Diego La Raza Lawyers Scholarships Selection Committee 2014 which awarded scholarships to immigrants including undocumented immigrants. Is there not an appearance of impropriety in this alone notwithstanding therefore a conflict of interest with his lawsuit against Trump who wants to deport illegals? The judge should stand down.

The Hispanic National Bar Association's mission statement is committed to 54+ million people of hispanic heritage living in the USA. that figure includes 11 million illegal immigrants. So they are advocating for illegal immigrants.Can the judge be objective in ruling on Trump when Trump wants to build a wall and deport illegals? The judge should stand down.

The Hispanic National Bar Association has made statements about "Trump's bias that all American's should reject" "recommend a stand against bigotry and racist rhetoric" "boycott of Trump's business ventures" So this is the group of which the judge is a lifetime member, calling for a boycott of Trump's businesses. Is this not an appearance of impropriety and therefore a conflict of interest? The judge should stand down.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3438098/posts

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd law firm

(sponsor of the scholarship program of the Hispanic National Bar Association)

http://sdlrla.com/scholarship/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/La-Raza-Dinnner-Program-2014-FINAL.pdf (both Curiel and the law firm are mentioned on this program)

Curiel appointed Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd to represent plaintiffs in a class action law suit against Trump in 2013. This law firm paid $675,000 to the Clinton Foundation for speeches made since 2009. Hillary Clinton gave a $225,000 speech in 2014. the law firm has pushed for the trial before the election, the hearing to be on the same day as the Republican Convention. How is there not a conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety? The judge should stand down.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/exclusive-law-firm-behind-trump-university-lawsuit-gave-big-money-to-the-clintons/

Curiel was born in 1953, his mother was not a US citizen until 1969. Vague on his father. Curiel himself therefore was an anchor baby. Not his fault of course but would this not prejudice his mind against Trump who wants to eject all illegals?

Too many issues that are within the bounds of conflict of interest.The judge should stand down.

End of.

Tuff to carry on a discourse when "End of" appears during the course of the discussion...the presumed closure being a signature of the rightwing.

Here is why Trump's lawyers have not filed a motion for Judge Curiel to recuse....

As many, many legal experts have opined in the past few days, a federal judge’s ethnicity or national origin cannot serve as the basis for a claim of judicial bias.

“Courts have repeatedly held that matters such as race or ethnicity are improper bases for challenging a judge’s impartiality,” the 2nd Circuit said.

Added Alexandra Lahav, who specializes in legal ethics at the University of Connecticut: “There is no basis in the law or our legal history. It’s antithetical to the rule of law.”

http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/2016/06/06/why-trump-lawyers-wont-ask-trump-university-judge-to-step-aside/

We already know from history a Strongman makes his own laws and of the consequences.

Trump's lawyers have not filed nor will they file for Judge Curiel to recuse due to his ethnicity. If they did make such a filing they'd get smoked by the Courts, the Bar and the Law and they know it. It would be Trump and his lawyers against the Constitution, which are not good odds.

If Trump's lawyers believe they have some valid or viable grounds to make a motion to recuse let 'em go at it because they have not done any such filings.

Everything about this Mussolini Trump created commotion is politics. It is the politics of fascism.

Allow me to reopen our discourse then because you seem to have glossed over or willingly ignored my points.

I am not asking for ethnicity to serve as a reason of bias and recusal. Of course that is wrong if presented as a single legal reason (or even partial reason).

Forget race or ethnicity for a minute and also your open hatred for Trump so you can see a couple of points more clearly if you possibly can:

If a judge is part of a body who awards scholarships to immigrants of which some openly admitted to being undocumented (illegal) immigrants and Trump is recommending sending illegals home then there is a conflict of interest in as much that the judge cannot therefore claim impartiality towards Trump.

If a judge is a member of an organisation that recommends and openly advertises that people should avoid doing business with any of Trump's companies, the judge cannot claim impartiality in judging the man Trump on one of his businesses because the judge already is in conflict with him.

If a judge chooses a law firm to take legal proceedings against a man when that firm is politically biased against him already because that man is an integral component of opposition to their own bias, then there is a conflict of interest.

Simply put there are:

Conflicts of interest around illegal immigrants,

Conflict of interest in concert with open opposition to Trump's businesses

Conflict of interest involving political partiality

Quite simply a juror would be rejected for these reasons.

That judge should stand down but not on the basis of his heritage, and never did I recommend that he should be recused or recuse himself on the basis of his heritage.

[Publicus]

Thank you for at least attempting to have a discourse with out banging off the walls with your usual rhetoric, except for your usual Benito cleverness which is getting boring now.

You ask for anything.

Curiel as a judge is obliged under law to avoid conflicts of interest and not give the appearance of impropriety.

Curiel was a member of San Diego La Raza Lawyers Scholarships Selection Committee 2014 which awarded scholarships to immigrants including undocumented immigrants. Is there not an appearance of impropriety in this alone notwithstanding therefore a conflict of interest with his lawsuit against Trump who wants to deport illegals? The judge should stand down.

The Hispanic National Bar Association's mission statement is committed to 54+ million people of hispanic heritage living in the USA. that figure includes 11 million illegal immigrants. So they are advocating for illegal immigrants.Can the judge be objective in ruling on Trump when Trump wants to build a wall and deport illegals? The judge should stand down.

The Hispanic National Bar Association has made statements about "Trump's bias that all American's should reject" "recommend a stand against bigotry and racist rhetoric" "boycott of Trump's business ventures" So this is the group of which the judge is a lifetime member, calling for a boycott of Trump's businesses. Is this not an appearance of impropriety and therefore a conflict of interest? The judge should stand down.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3438098/posts

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd law firm

(sponsor of the scholarship program of the Hispanic National Bar Association)

http://sdlrla.com/scholarship/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/La-Raza-Dinnner-Program-2014-FINAL.pdf (both Curiel and the law firm are mentioned on this program)

Curiel appointed Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd to represent plaintiffs in a class action law suit against Trump in 2013. This law firm paid $675,000 to the Clinton Foundation for speeches made since 2009. Hillary Clinton gave a $225,000 speech in 2014. the law firm has pushed for the trial before the election, the hearing to be on the same day as the Republican Convention. How is there not a conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety? The judge should stand down.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/exclusive-law-firm-behind-trump-university-lawsuit-gave-big-money-to-the-clintons/

Curiel was born in 1953, his mother was not a US citizen until 1969. Vague on his father. Curiel himself therefore was an anchor baby. Not his fault of course but would this not prejudice his mind against Trump who wants to eject all illegals?

Too many issues that are within the bounds of conflict of interest.The judge should stand down.

End of.

Tuff to carry on a discourse when "End of" appears during the course of the discussion...the presumed closure being a signature of the rightwing.

Here is why Trump's lawyers have not filed a motion for Judge Curiel to recuse....

As many, many legal experts have opined in the past few days, a federal judge’s ethnicity or national origin cannot serve as the basis for a claim of judicial bias.

“Courts have repeatedly held that matters such as race or ethnicity are improper bases for challenging a judge’s impartiality,” the 2nd Circuit said.

Added Alexandra Lahav, who specializes in legal ethics at the University of Connecticut: “There is no basis in the law or our legal history. It’s antithetical to the rule of law.”

http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/2016/06/06/why-trump-lawyers-wont-ask-trump-university-judge-to-step-aside/

We already know from history a Strongman makes his own laws and of the consequences.

Trump's lawyers have not filed nor will they file for Judge Curiel to recuse due to his ethnicity. If they did make such a filing they'd get smoked by the Courts, the Bar and the Law and they know it. It would be Trump and his lawyers against the Constitution, which are not good odds.

If Trump's lawyers believe they have some valid or viable grounds to make a motion to recuse let 'em go at it because they have not done any such filings.

Everything about this Mussolini Trump created commotion is politics. It is the politics of fascism.

Allow me to reopen our discourse then because you seem to have glossed over or willingly ignored my points.

I am not asking for ethnicity to serve as a reason of bias and recusal. Of course that is wrong if presented as a single legal reason (or even partial reason).

Forget race or ethnicity for a minute and also your open hatred for Trump so you can see a couple of points more clearly if you possibly can:

If a judge is part of a body who awards scholarships to immigrants of which some openly admitted to being undocumented (illegal) immigrants and Trump is recommending sending illegals home then there is a conflict of interest in as much that the judge cannot therefore claim impartiality towards Trump.

If a judge is a member of an organisation that recommends and openly advertises that people should avoid doing business with any of Trump's companies, the judge cannot claim impartiality in judging the man Trump on one of his businesses because the judge already is in conflict with him.

If a judge chooses a law firm to take legal proceedings against a man when that firm is politically biased against him already because that man is an integral component of opposition to their own bias, then there is a conflict of interest.

Simply put there are:

Conflicts of interest around illegal immigrants,

Conflict of interest in concert with open opposition to Trump's businesses

Conflict of interest involving political partiality

Quite simply a juror would be rejected for these reasons.

That judge should stand down but not on the basis of his heritage, and never did I recommend that he should be recused or recuse himself on the basis of his heritage.

you seem to have glossed over or willingly ignored my points.

Your "points" were encompassed in the content of my reply post. Given you've missed the fact entirely, please visit here thanks http://www.readingrockets.org/article/repeated-interactive-read-alouds-preschool-and-kindergarten

Trump's lawyers have not filed for the judge to recuse for any reason. Trump is himself carrying on as a Benito would be expected to do, i.e., raging on about the judge's ethnicity. The post however tries the conflict of interest angle, but that is related to the judge's ethnicity too. Not to mention freedom of association as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.

If the judge believes he can be impartial in the case then it would be up to others who are mind-readers to tell us otherwise. To tell us what the judge really thinks. Which is what the post tries to do. Or Trump's lawyers should make a filing that says why the judge's belief in his integrity is misplaced or just plain wrong.

So get back to me thx when Trump's attorneys file a motion for the judge to recuse due to conflict of interest due to the judge's memberships and associations in the society. And, moreover, due to a "political partiality."

Trump's lawyers have not made such a filing to date nor have they indicated they will make such a filing. So I and others won't be giving much attention to the conflict of interest allegations raised only by the far out right in general discussions and in other bs sessions. Even Trump's lawyers respect the Bill of Rights to the Constitution and its guarantee of freedom of association. For everyone.

The judge is not a juror btw.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Publicus

[Linzz]

Thank you for at least attempting to have a discourse with out banging off the walls with your usual rhetoric, except for your usual Benito cleverness which is getting boring now.

You ask for anything.

Curiel as a judge is obliged under law to avoid conflicts of interest and not give the appearance of impropriety.

Curiel was a member of San Diego La Raza Lawyers Scholarships Selection Committee 2014 which awarded scholarships to immigrants including undocumented immigrants. Is there not an appearance of impropriety in this alone notwithstanding therefore a conflict of interest with his lawsuit against Trump who wants to deport illegals? The judge should stand down.

The Hispanic National Bar Association's mission statement is committed to 54+ million people of hispanic heritage living in the USA. that figure includes 11 million illegal immigrants. So they are advocating for illegal immigrants.Can the judge be objective in ruling on Trump when Trump wants to build a wall and deport illegals? The judge should stand down.

The Hispanic National Bar Association has made statements about "Trump's bias that all American's should reject" "recommend a stand against bigotry and racist rhetoric" "boycott of Trump's business ventures" So this is the group of which the judge is a lifetime member, calling for a boycott of Trump's businesses. Is this not an appearance of impropriety and therefore a conflict of interest? The judge should stand down.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3438098/posts

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd law firm

(sponsor of the scholarship program of the Hispanic National Bar Association)

http://sdlrla.com/scholarship/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/La-Raza-Dinnner-Program-2014-FINAL.pdf (both Curiel and the law firm are mentioned on this program)

Curiel appointed Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd to represent plaintiffs in a class action law suit against Trump in 2013. This law firm paid $675,000 to the Clinton Foundation for speeches made since 2009. Hillary Clinton gave a $225,000 speech in 2014. the law firm has pushed for the trial before the election, the hearing to be on the same day as the Republican Convention. How is there not a conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety? The judge should stand down.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/exclusive-law-firm-behind-trump-university-lawsuit-gave-big-money-to-the-clintons/

Curiel was born in 1953, his mother was not a US citizen until 1969. Vague on his father. Curiel himself therefore was an anchor baby. Not his fault of course but would this not prejudice his mind against Trump who wants to eject all illegals?

Too many issues that are within the bounds of conflict of interest.The judge should stand down.

End of.

Tuff to carry on a discourse when "End of" appears during the course of the discussion...the presumed closure being a signature of the rightwing.

Here is why Trump's lawyers have not filed a motion for Judge Curiel to recuse....

As many, many legal experts have opined in the past few days, a federal judge’s ethnicity or national origin cannot serve as the basis for a claim of judicial bias.

“Courts have repeatedly held that matters such as race or ethnicity are improper bases for challenging a judge’s impartiality,” the 2nd Circuit said.

Added Alexandra Lahav, who specializes in legal ethics at the University of Connecticut: “There is no basis in the law or our legal history. It’s antithetical to the rule of law.”

http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/2016/06/06/why-trump-lawyers-wont-ask-trump-university-judge-to-step-aside/

We already know from history a Strongman makes his own laws and of the consequences.

Trump's lawyers have not filed nor will they file for Judge Curiel to recuse due to his ethnicity. If they did make such a filing they'd get smoked by the Courts, the Bar and the Law and they know it. It would be Trump and his lawyers against the Constitution, which are not good odds.

If Trump's lawyers believe they have some valid or viable grounds to make a motion to recuse let 'em go at it because they have not done any such filings.

Everything about this Mussolini Trump created commotion is politics. It is the politics of fascism.

Allow me to reopen our discourse then because you seem to have glossed over or willingly ignored my points.

I am not asking for ethnicity to serve as a reason of bias and recusal. Of course that is wrong if presented as a single legal reason (or even partial reason).

Forget race or ethnicity for a minute and also your open hatred for Trump so you can see a couple of points more clearly if you possibly can:

If a judge is part of a body who awards scholarships to immigrants of which some openly admitted to being undocumented (illegal) immigrants and Trump is recommending sending illegals home then there is a conflict of interest in as much that the judge cannot therefore claim impartiality towards Trump.

If a judge is a member of an organisation that recommends and openly advertises that people should avoid doing business with any of Trump's companies, the judge cannot claim impartiality in judging the man Trump on one of his businesses because the judge already is in conflict with him.

If a judge chooses a law firm to take legal proceedings against a man when that firm is politically biased against him already because that man is an integral component of opposition to their own bias, then there is a conflict of interest.

Simply put there are:

Conflicts of interest around illegal immigrants,

Conflict of interest in concert with open opposition to Trump's businesses

Conflict of interest involving political partiality

Quite simply a juror would be rejected for these reasons.

That judge should stand down but not on the basis of his heritage, and never did I recommend that he should be recused or recuse himself on the basis of his heritage.

you seem to have glossed over or willingly ignored my points.

Your "points" were encompassed in the content of my reply post. Given you've missed the fact entirely, please visit here thanks http://www.readingrockets.org/article/repeated-interactive-read-alouds-preschool-and-kindergarten

Trump's lawyers have not filed for the judge to recuse for any reason. Trump is himself carrying on as a Benito would be expected to do, i.e., raging on about the judge's ethnicity. The post however tries the conflict of interest angle, but that is related to the judge's ethnicity too. Not to mention freedom of association as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.

If the judge believes he can be impartial in the case then it would be up to others who are mind-readers to tell us otherwise. To tell us what the judge really thinks. Which is what the post tries to do. Or Trump's lawyers should make a filing that says why the judge's belief in his integrity is misplaced or just plain wrong.

So get back to me thx when Trump's attorneys file a motion for the judge to recuse due to conflict of interest due to the judge's memberships and associations in the society. And, moreover, due to a "political partiality."

Trump's lawyers have not made such a filing to date nor have they indicated they will make such a filing. So I and others won't be giving much attention to the conflict of interest allegations raised only by the far out right in general discussions and in other bs sessions. Even Trump's lawyers respect the Bill of Rights to the Constitution and its guarantee of freedom of association. For everyone.

The judge is not a juror btw.

Your condescending "kindergarten" BS is just high handed nonsense that you impress yourself with, which you pull out of your repertoire ad nauseum. Your address was about race and ethnicity. Mine avoided that altogether.

Up to Trump's lawyers to find if the judge has contravened any ruling. I never talked about Trump's lawyers, I was talking about what the judge should do IMHO. If the judge is honorable he would disqualify himself under 445 (a and (b 1.in view of the earlier points made. His obligation to the Judicial Code of Conduct is not that the judge has to prove what he is thinking at all, or that we have to be mind readers as you say is just nonsense. The judge is obligated to give an appearance of propriety to a litigant. That is all. Because of his associations in my opinion, he doesn't give that appearance. In view of the gravity of the election from a purely impartial standing, he should recuse himself.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453

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

I never said a judge was a juror btw. I said jurors would be rejected pre trial for the appearance of supposed bias on these issues if they were associated with any organizations that were actively contrary to the defendant. Then more so a judge.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Scott

[Publicus]

Trump is a crazy wild man lunatic.

How many people have attacked a judge in this way. Lawyers file their motions to include the rare motion to recuse and the case goes on with or without the judge. Trump in this case is conducting his own case in public using means and methods that bring condemnation from all quarters.

Trump's lawyers are handling this case so other attorneys need not apply. Everyone has an opinion which is fine. We know the opinion of the political right to include "political partiality" alleged against the judge as has been posted.

Reality is Trump and His Dancing Fanboyz are handling the rhetorical aspects of the case while Trump's well compensated lawyers are handling the legal side of it, which is the whole of it. Trump's lawyers have not filed for the judge to recuse. Nothing. No filings. No basis whatsoever.

As I'd said, we know the opinion of the legal hardcore rightists. They are welcome to get back to us if Trump's lawyers do file a motion concerning the judge. They may be Trump's lawyers, however, It does seem they have read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as well as professional documents and charters. And that they are not politically involved.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Publicus

[Linzz]

Trump is a crazy wild man lunatic.

How many people have attacked a judge in this way. Lawyers file their motions to include the rare motion to recuse and the case goes on with or without the judge. Trump in this case is conducting his own case in public using means and methods that bring condemnation from all quarters.

Trump's lawyers are handling this case so other attorneys need not apply. Everyone has an opinion which is fine. We know the opinion of the political right to include "political partiality" alleged against the judge as has been posted.

Reality is Trump and His Dancing Fanboyz are handling the rhetorical aspects of the case while Trump's well compensated lawyers are handling the legal side of it, which is the whole of it. Trump's lawyers have not filed for the judge to recuse. Nothing. No filings. No basis whatsoever.

As I'd said, we know the opinion of the legal hardcore rightists. They are welcome to get back to us if Trump's lawyers do file a motion concerning the judge. They may be Trump's lawyers, however, It does seem they have read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as well as professional documents and charters. And that they are not politically involved.

Fine. Like I said, up to Trump's lawyers. However if the judge IMO is party to a group that calls for ostracizing of Trumps businesses looks to have the appearance of his being judge in his own cause. Also the fact that he released and made public documents that included names and addresses of people which could have put those people at risk, sufficient for him to reseal them could be another. Up to Trump's lawyers then as to whether the judge has exercised impropriety if he has the ability but won't recuse himself.