Trump II

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Doesn't Lady Justice have a blindfold on (and carry a sword and balance) in the USA?

She is a statue. Judges are human

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

She is a statue. Judges are human

Partial judges in my country would need to find a different occupation very fast because that is not tolerated. Judges are there to apply the Law, irrespective of their personal persuasions, they are impartial. Because interpretations of the law are possible, courts in the Netherlands are presided by multiple (at least 3) judges for complicated or important cases or appeals.

The situation in the USA seems to be highly politicized from my perspective (or as portrayed by you), and thus not very 'just' (except for good judges).

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Because judges are human, i.e., subject to biases like the rest of us, and because most laws require some degree of interpretation, we have such fierce political battles when it comes to appointing Supreme Court justices.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Just a reminder:

[Alan Goldhammer]

It's nearly impossible to have a judge removed from office over here.  Judges, once appointed or elected, are lifetime appointments.

You need to clarify that this only pertains to Federal judges.  State and local judges are not lifetime appointments (at least all the states that I am familiar with).  Even so there are Federal judges who have been removed from office for malfeasance.

[James Clark]

If a judge of that heritage can be better than a white judge, isn't the reverse true as well? In other words, that a judge of that heritage can be worse (i.e., less impartial) than a white judge?

Sure - that's not racism.  Any individual of any heritage can be more or less competent than any other individual.   Saying a judge is not impartial because of his race in a case that has nothing to do with race or his cultural experience?  That's racism. 

To quote the estimable Paul Ryan, this statement was, "...sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment."   

But if that's not racist, can we get back to the part about how men who just can't help but commit sexual assault are really just appreciating attractive women (like they have for thousands of years)?

[James Clark]

Trump wasn't discriminating against the judge.  He was concerned that the judge would discriminate against him because he said some nasty things about some Latinos.  Discrimination goes both ways.  He was afraid the judge couldn't be fair.   Black people say the Attorney General cannot be fair.  That he'll discriminate.  Are black people racist or do they have a legitimate concern?

If you were a white guy suing a black guy, would you want black or white jurors.  If you wanted white jurors, would you be a racist?If you're  a black guy suing a white guy, would you want black or white jurors?  If you wanted black jurors, would you be a racist?   


This political correctness is getting very hurtful for individuals and for society as a whole.  We've lost the real meaning of racism because it's now being used as a PC weapon to destroy people.  Include misogyny, gay, and all kinds of PC policing.  Of course night show comedians can talk about Trump getting BJ's.  But because it comes from the left, it's OK.  Only the right has to obey PC rules.

I'm honestly speechless.

[Farmer]

Yeah, once you equate the speech of comedians performing with judges delivering decisions, it's pretty much all over.

[Alan Klein]

I'm honestly speechless.

Maybe you didn't have the same experience I had with a federal justice on the same level as the ones that ruled against Trump on his executive orders.  In a case I was being sued, the justice ruled against me regarding my own attorney who requested to be removed from my case.  He was worried I would stop paying him.   I wanted him to stay because it would cost too much money to get a new lawyer up-to-speed to represent me.  The judge of course was a former attorney himself.  So I knew I was in trouble.  Lawyers tend to stick together even when one becomes a judge.  Professional courtesy.   In any case, when I complained to the federal justice in his chambers that his ruling wasn't right, he looked me in the eye and said, quote: "Mr. Klein, you know the American jurisprudence system isn't always fair."  End quote.

I was honestly speechless, just like you.  Actually stunned.  Not so much by the ruling.  I kinda expected that.   But by what he said to me in his answer to my question.  Yes, judges are prejudiced. 

[Alan Klein]

It seems Australia and America are good friends and allies again.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/world/australia/donald-trump-malcolm-turnbull-meeting.html?_r=0

[ppmax2]

Maybe you didn't have the same experience I had with a federal justice on the same level as the ones that ruled against Trump on his executive orders.  In a case I was being sued, the justice ruled against me regarding my own attorney who requested to be removed from my case.  He was worried I would stop paying him.   I wanted him to stay because it would cost too much money to get a new lawyer up-to-speed to represent me.  The judge of course was a former attorney himself.  So I knew I was in trouble.  Lawyers tend to stick together even when one becomes a judge.  Professional courtesy.   In any case, when I complained to the federal justice in his chambers that his ruling wasn't right, he looked me in the eye and said, quote: "Mr. Klein, you know the American jurisprudence system isn't always fair."  End quote.

I was honestly speechless, just like you.  Actually stunned.  Not so much by the ruling.  I kinda expected that.   But by what he said to me in his answer to my question.  Yes, judges are prejudiced.

In what universe does your quibble with an attorney and the judges decision to let your lawyer walk in any way resemble the decisions by federal judges to Trump's transparent attempt to ban muslims from entering the country? Your attorney apparently made a convincing argument that he wasn't getting paid, or that you were involved in continuing criminal behavior. I think you might need to bone up on what prejudice means; what you describe would be collusion, not prejudice. 

There is no small degree of irony in literally every post I read from you. Now you're the special snowflake who wants special rules and you're upset because the cookie didn't crumble your way. You've apparently been convinced that you're a victim in a broad liberal conspiracy to keep the white man down. In reality, you're just feeling entitled to benefits that you have no claim to...and you view the entire world through that lens.

Your president and congress just claimed victory for passing a bill that will probably (my assumption) materially affect you negatively. In addition, it will materially benefit a group of people that really don't need any help. But no worries, at least America and Australia are BFFs again!

[Otto Phocus]

You need to clarify that this only pertains to Federal judges.  State and local judges are not lifetime appointments (at least all the states that I am familiar with).  Even so there are Federal judges who have been removed from office for malfeasance.

About 15 of them have been removed.  It does take a lot to impeach and convict a Federal Judge and that is how it should be. 

Removing a Federal Judge is a serious step and needs to be considered far beyond just "we did not like this one decision he or she made".

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... lack of understanding for what those women actually feel/want/think....

Luckily, there is a book to help:

[LesPalenik]

Understanding Women, ...

That must be the Part 1 copy.

[Alan Klein]

In what universe does your quibble with an attorney and the judges decision to let your lawyer walk in any way resemble the decisions by federal judges to Trump's transparent attempt to ban muslims from entering the country? Your attorney apparently made a convincing argument that he wasn't getting paid, or that you were involved in continuing criminal behavior. I think you might need to bone up on what prejudice means; what you describe would be collusion, not prejudice. 

There is no small degree of irony in literally every post I read from you. Now you're the special snowflake who wants special rules and you're upset because the cookie didn't crumble your way. You've apparently been convinced that you're a victim in a broad liberal conspiracy to keep the white man down. In reality, you're just feeling entitled to benefits that you have no claim to...and you view the entire world through that lens.

Your president and congress just claimed victory for passing a bill that will probably (my assumption) materially affect you negatively. In addition, it will materially benefit a group of people that really don't need any help. But no worries, at least America and Australia are BFFs again!

Wow.  You figured out all that about me, did you, just from my post.  Well, you're incorrect on all scores.  First, I never said the cases were the same.  I said the judges were on the same level.  Second, I was not tried as a criminal.  It was a civil case.  Third, I said that the judge's decision was pretty expected.  It was the judge's comment afterwards  "...Well, the American jurisprudence system is not always fair..." that was astounding to me.  I would think anyone would find that a judge who would say something like that to a litigant in a trial he is handling as pretty amazing and downright depressing.  I'll let others decide if his statement or he was biased.   

Also, how did you even read in my post that "... You've apparently been convinced that you're a victim in a broad liberal conspiracy to keep the white man down..."  Wow.  It seems to me that you're the one with the baggage to even say something like that.  You really should get a grip on before you make such denigrating accusations about me. 

[Farmer]

It seems Australia and America are good friends and allies again.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/world/australia/donald-trump-malcolm-turnbull-meeting.html?_r=0

We always have been, but as has been demonstrated numerous times, Trump knows nothing of history.

[Alan Klein]

We always have been, but as has been demonstrated numerous times, Trump knows nothing of history.

Phil, the disagreement had nothing to do with Trump's knowledge of history.  So why make an ad hominin attack against him?  Trump was upset a few weeks ago when Australia's President Turnbull told him in that now famous phone call that Obama was going to take the 1250 refugees to America that Australia was holding in offshore detention camps.  Australia didn't want them -  it went against your strong position on what kind of people you take in.  They have to have Australian "values", English speaking, etc.  Read the article I gave you the link too.  In any case, moving those refugees to America was against Trump's strong position during the election here against taking in refugees who aren't vetted.  Similar to Turnbull's. Trump was upset with the Obama/Turnbull deal.  In the end, Trump honored the deal Obama made and got Turnbull and Australia off the hook from having to deal with those refugees if he had refused to bring them to America.  You should thank Trump instead of insulting him.

[Farmer]

Phil, the disagreement had nothing to do with Trump's knowledge of history.  So why make an ad hominin attack against him?  Trump was upset a few weeks ago when Australia's President Turnbull told him in that now famous phone call that Obama was going to take the 1250 refugees to America that Australia was holding in offshore detention camps.  Australia didn't want them -  it went against your strong position on what kind of people you take in.  They have to have Australian "values", English speaking, etc.  Read the article I gave you the link too.  In any case, moving those refugees to America was against Trump's strong position during the election here against taking in refugees who aren't vetted.  Similar to Turnbull's. Trump was upset with the Obama/Turnbull deal.  In the end, Trump honored the deal Obama made and got Turnbull and Australia off the hook from having to deal with those refugees if he had refused to bring them to America.  You should thank Trump instead of insulting him.

The refugee exchange (it's not just us giving you refugees - we're taking the same number from you) has nothing to do with "values" at all and was long before Trump shot his mouth off without obtaining advice from his advisors.  Trump's lack of understanding of history is evident constantly, not just that one instance.  Trump could have *easily* walked away from that deal without attacking Turnbull or Australia, but he bumbled his way into a giant gaffe that has several of his key advisors talking back the situation before it became ridiculously embarrassing for Trump.

So once you've actually read and understand the exchange deal and note that the latest changes here relating to applications for citizenship were unrelated to the refugee deal (which is about dis-incentivising people smugglers and economic refugees (in support of domestic political considerations), then perhaps you can be involved in a conversation about it.  I have nothing to thank Trump for.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Interestingly, Trump congratulated Turnbull and Australia for having a health care system that is far superior to America's!

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Interestingly, Trump congratulated Turnbull and Australia for having a health care system that is far superior to America's!

But does he even have a clue what he's talking about?
That remains to be the recurring question.

Cheers,
Bart