What disturbs me most about this strip is that I think the situation is far worse than what Tom the Dancing Bug is presenting. I feel like it’s going to be like that time we found out all the climate scientists were wrong because they weren’t pessimistic enough.
6 Likes
But, but, Mexicans LOVE him. They line up around the block for Trump Tower Taco Bowls… right?
2 Likes
Yeah, segregation can play at “separate but equal” but Trump’s thing feels more like the classic thing where if you’re not white you’re defined by race, if you’re not a man then you’re defined by your gender, if you’re not mainstream christian then you’re defined by your religion.
11 Likes
Popehat did a nice lawsplainer that mentioned, among other things, why insulting a judge doesn’t qualify as a reason for recusal
But can't judge Curiel's impartiality be reasonably questioned now that Trump has repeatedly attacked him?No. It’s extremely well established — as well-established as anything in federal law — that you can’t judge-shop by being a douche. A party’s insults, criticisms, and even threats are not a valid basis for recusal. Otherwise you could judge-shop by attacking judges until you found one you liked.
5 Likes
So we all will march together towards the future
Well, not all, per se.
Just the ones who look like me:
It’s called “Democracy”
The landed
And the wealthy
And the pious
And the healthy
And the straight ones
And the pale ones
And we only mean the male ones
If you’re all of the above, then you’re okay
As we build a new tomorrow here today!
5 Likes
I’d bet there are a lot of Trump supporters chalking up his views as one of those Trump-will-be-Trumpin’ personal flaws that would never, ever trickle into White House policies because congressional Republicans will keep him in check. (These would be the same Republicans currently lining up, at frightening numbers, behind Trump while holding their noses.)
That is, what you’re really about to find out is how much collective cognitive dissonance, denial, delusional thinking, and amnesia there is in the U.S.—and to me, that is way more troubling.
9 Likes
Galavant is becoming the new xkcd.
Sadly, I’m running out of songs to post. They need to make #MoreGalavant before that happens.
2 Likes
It’s all troubling, really.
“Sure, but you’re implying that this judge should do so because he’s of Mexican descent”
It would help the conversation proceed if you were to stop imagining what I was “implying”, and instead started reading what I wrote. It’s the La Raza membership that bothers me.
you misquoted Sotomayor to fit your own needs
No. I accurately paraphrased.
Why? What does that have to do with the specifics of the judicial case at hand in this judge’s court?
5 Likes
The (indirect) defendant is an enemy of La Raza. The judge is an (indirect) member of La Raza. For an intelligent bunch, you sure need to have some things spelled out for you.
So, are you saying that all that a person should need to do to get rid of a disagreeable judge is to say something so offensive that that judge can no longer look at them objectively?
5 Likes
So, are you saying …
No.
What you’re missing about our intelligence is the ability it gives us to see how stupid and racist it is to claim that a judge who’s a member of La Raza can’t deal fairly with the facts of an unrelated case at hand just because he’s a member of La Raza (and by extension, as Trump has said, just because he’s “Mexican”).
8 Likes
No, actually, judge denies a motion to dismiss a lawsuit against Trump and so he’s a “Mexican” (quotes because that word doesn’t mean the same thing when Trump says it when it does when you or I say it). The judge didn’t do anything to Trump or expose anything about him. He just ruled that the plaintiffs had a sufficient case to get their day in court.
See this article for a fuller explanation of Trump being mad at a judge for… being a judge?
3 Likes
Really? You seem to want the judge to recuse himself because Trump said something that an organization the judge belongs to (assuming that they’re the same La Raza) found offensive, something that was said after the trial had already started.
If it’s ruled that the judge has to recuse himself because Trump said something offensive, how would you stop people from judge-shopping by saying offensive things and then asking those judges to recuse themselves?
You may want to read a post by an actual lawyer who says that that’s what this issue basically boils down to.
Even if one argues that Judge Curiel’s membership in a Latino attorney organization might show bias, Trump’s lawyers would have a problem: they’d be arguing that the alleged bias didn’t arise until long after Judge Curiel started hearing the case. Trump’s argument, to the extent it can be nailed down, is that Trump wants to build a wall and Judge Curiel is a member of a Latino organization and therefore Judge Curiel is biased. But Trump didn’t start talking about building a wall until Judge Curiel had already been hearing the case for years. In general, a party can’t manufacture bias through new conduct after the judge has been assigned. That stops parties from judge-shopping. So, for instance, if I don’t like how my case is going before a Turkish-American federal judge who is a member of a Turkish-American group, I can’t force a judge-switch by becoming a loud advocate for official recognition of the Armenian Genocide.
11 Likes
Your use of quotes indicates you were quoting. For reference here’s what you’re now calling an accurate paraphrase:
“wise latina makes better judgements than white men”
You may consider that an accurate paraphrase but that’s a matter of opinion, and you didn’t in any way indicate it was a mere paraphrase.
7 Likes
