Kind Hearts and Coronets is a great way to learn about those sorts of things,
In the US, a different standard applies
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”
This gets back to the judge shopping argument I referenced earlier though. This judge has been hearing this case since January 2013 - long before Trump started attacking all of mexico.
Trump can’t grant himself a new judge just by attacking the judge he already has. If that were a viable legal strategy, everyone who found themselves in front of a judge they didn’t like would be able to attack the judge (directly or indirectly) and demand a fresh judge.
Lots of people have pointed out you are paraphrasing while trying to make it look like a quote, misrepresenting what was said, and so on.
But you know what? We have every reason to expect that a latina judge is going to make better judgements than a white male.
Let me explain. When you select a group based on a combination of traits you kind of force a negative correlation between those traits. Consider beauty and acting ability in actors. Presumably natural aptitude for acting and natural beauty are completely unrelated in the general population, but we know both are selected for in actors.
So 500 people from the general population look like this:
It doesn’t matter which axis is which, they are just plotting standard deviations in either acting aptitude or conventional beauty.
If we simplify the selection process for actors to just looking at those two factors, which of these people will be successful television or movie actors?
Suddenly we have a negative correlation because we are specifically selecting people along the edge of a circle in the upper right quadrant. So we get the fact that people who have the right look (beauty is kind of the wrong word, action stars aren’t all “beautiful” but they have the right look to be action stars, for example) are able to get movie roles despite their less-than-world-class acting (they may even be good actors, but given how few people on earth get to that level of success, they don’t appear to measure up). Of course we can’t make comments on any specific individuals based on this, but, on the aggregate, we should expect that someone who doesn’t have the look of a TV or movie star - with no other information - will be a better actor (or oftentimes comedian, since that’s harder to fake; ever noticed that comedians have a wide range of looks?) than someone who does have that look.
This doesn’t just create a negative correlation where things are unrelated, it even overwhelms positive correlations. In the general population, even ignoring basketball practice we would tend to expect that height would be positively correlated with freethrow percentage: they are just plain closer to the basket. But what about in the NBA? Do we see that correlation hold? No, we don’t. In fact, we see a negative correlation, and that’s easy to confirm with actual stats. Basically, if you are 6’0" they aren’t letting you on the court unless you are damn good. If you are 7’5" you are going to be a star center with substantially less skill.
Back to judges, if we believe (I hope we do) that ethnicity and gender don’t qualify a person to be a judge, then we are saying aptitude for being a judge is not correlated with either of those factors. But we know that becoming a judge is correlated with both of those factors. That can be because of systemic biases in the education system that make it harder to get through all the requirements based on where you were born and who you were born to or it can be because of outright sexism and racism in the selection process.
At any rate, we’ve got two factors here that play into being a judge - being a white man and being competent to be a judge. We can agree that first factor ought not be a factor at all, but it is one. Because we select for those two things, we are going to see them negatively correlated in the judge pool. On average, latina judges are going to have more aptitude for being judges unless latinas are a lot worse than white men at being judges in the general population (moreso than shorter people are worse at shooting baskets). If everyone is equal, the selection process produces great latina judges and comparatively mediocre white male judges.
Again, the broad correlation doesn’t let us make any meaningful predictions about actual individual judges. Picking an individual white male judge and individual latina judge and guessing the latina judge is a more competent jurist would be silly. Still, the broad generalization that we should expect people who were discriminated against in a selection process to be more competent than people who were not, on average, is correct.
You constructed a straw man to argue against, and now you have lost to it.
He’s German, right? And weren’t there signs in a lot of establishments in various cities, “No Dogs or Irishmen”? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boO4RowROiw
@anon50609448, wish I coulda posted this just above your comment:
It’s even worse than that. The Popehat article @TooGoodToCheck_ linked links to an article that explains that the “La Raza” that the judge is connected to is a Latino Bar Association, NOT the left-wing “La Raza” that Trump claims to be an “enemy” of. So @fche is actually being incredibly misleading with their description of the situation.
Hey, La Raza, La Schmaza, it’s all Mexican, and that’s all fine, okay? But it’s all racist too, you see what I’m saying? Because all Mexicans are racist against Trump, just because he’s building a wall. And it’s a wall that will only be built to keep out the bad ones!
/s (and thanks for the useful info)
La Raza joins the ranks of things where there is more evidence of it being vilified than of its evidence of its existence or significance. Along with Political Correctness, Misandrony, Reverse Racism and NAMBLA.
About the only time you hear it mentioned is some one popping off about how “La Raza claims it wants to give US Southwest back to Mexico”. The number of people actually claiming to support it are miniscule. So at best it serves as strawman argument fodder as opposed to something people really should take note of.
Mod note: Stay on topic.
Back to the cartoon then: the “white publicists” bit was solid gold.
That shouldn’t matter, any more than any other judge’s membership in a country club or cultural organization.
If you are a judge you are supposed to keep an open mind and adjudicate based on the evidence and testimony and facts of the case, not tangential stuff like whether you personally like the defendant or not. I know judges are mere humans and can fall prey to their own biases, but we have to trust them or else the justice system grinds to a halt. In the case of Trump University I think the facts so far present a pretty clear case of a scam-- Fortune and the National Review, pro-business magazines with very conservative leanings, have all said in no uncertain terms “yes, Trump U. was a scam, and a pretty bad one at that.” If the judge rules against Trump that could mean bias, but more likely it means Trump is guilty.
Comments in reply to the off topic comment were eaten.
Also, and it pains me to say this, the GOP has been priming their base for Trump’s explicit racism for decades.
The strains of violent and virulent racism run very deep. The GOP learned how to tap into it for political advantage. Trump has merely opened the spigots.
I think you are a very confused person speaking out of ignorance. Let me attempt to straighten out that confusion and offer you some educational information that might alleviate your concerns.
Judge Curiel is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, which is a branch of the California La Raza Lawyers Association. This organization is a Bar association. It has no connection whatsoever with the National Council of La Raza, the group that so concerns you. The California La Raza Lawyers Association is actually an affiliate of the Hispanic National Bar Association.
Got it? Curiel is not a member of the La Raza that gives you so much fear. He is a member of a professional association. Now that you have been appraised of the facts, maybe you will now stop spreading Trump manure.
It’s also factually inaccurate.
@Nonentity brought this up 7 hours ago.
Sorry for being late to the party!
No worries.
Given the progress so far in the conversation with @fche, mentioning it a second time might not hurt.
I love watching his position bounce back and forth in every statement, trying not to be too horrible. It’s like watching Smeagol battle with himself in LoTR.
*He’s a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican,*
which is all fine.
*But I say he’s got bias.*
*There is a hostility to me from the judge, tremendous hostility, beyond belief. I believe he happens to be Spanish, *
which is fine.
*He is Hispanic, *
which is fine.
