Obama Admin Blocked An Iranian-American Judge From Hearing Iranian Immigration Cases

[Contumacious]

Dear SwimExpert sure you can make a distinction there.

Erm, no. There is no "can" about it. Any attempt to compare this judge to Curiel is entirely without merit. Period.

WUT?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear SwimExpert sure you can make a distinction there.

Erm, no. There is no "can" about it. Any attempt to compare this judge to Curiel is entirely without merit. Period.

Dear SwimExpert
Until we have judge and courts who enforce the standard of equal protection of interests
by RESOLVING conflicts fully instead of taking sides,
YES there is commonality among all cases, judges and lawyers
that are biased toward ADVERSARIAL approaches to justices
instead of CONSENSUS as the standard of laws.

We don't have Equal Justice Under Law yet.
We have justice for those who win in court,
and those decisions are biased as one sided.

That's one way there is commonality between these judges, courts and cases.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear SwimExpert sure you can make a distinction there.

Erm, no. There is no "can" about it. Any attempt to compare this judge to Curiel is entirely without merit. Period.

WUT?

Dear Contumacious
I think the points SwimExpert and NYcarbineer are trying to make

1. Difference in the CONTENT of the cases and the relation to the Judge:
In the case of Trump, the argument is the CASE is about FRAUD not DIRECTLY about immigration,
and the possible prejudice against Trump is based on his "stance on immigration" outside the case
(while the conflict on the Judge's side is either argued based on association with pro-immigrant groups that have denounced Trump, or statements made in the media complaining the Judge being "Mexican" implies the Judge is a sympathizer on the side of "Mexican immigrants" and supposedly against Trump)

2. The fact the Iranian-American case was settled in favor of removing the limitation and letting the complainant preside over cases shows this example is a poor one to use that makes the opposite point.

3. I would argue further it makes a STRONGER case against Trump because
a. the justice system reversed the restriction that either being Iranian-American and/or also
attending meetings related to that was grounds for recusal by appearance of conflicts (and even paid a fine)
b. the conflicts were more directly tied to the subject of the case(s)
In Trump's case the fraud arguments are not the issue
but bias for or against Trump for his immigration views which is arguably indirectly or not at all related.

Other people keep thinking Trump can weasel his way out of this
and can also swing the election and get more voters to come out than Hillary can.

We'll see who has more political or legal pull to push cases against both of them, or to weasel out of them.

I am guessing Hillary can better maneuver out of her situation and get more support because all the lawyers and the judges they support will bail out a lawyer who will keep the system going so lawyers can profit.

It will be interesting if the conflict of interest that comes up is the legal profession
and the ongoing monopoly of lawyers and judges that keep their influence and interests in power.

Because Trump is not a lawyer, if he threatens that system he can either fall victim to it or finally overthrow
this secular theocracy going on worshipping the federal courts and Supreme Court as the word of God.

I don't think he is strong enough to overcome it.

I think the people running the system still support Bill and Hillary Clinton
for their job and economic security. The people who can beat the lawyers are their own games
are either the Constitutionalists and/or Christians or both, and Trump is neither one of those.
Cruz was the best bet for beating the corrupt lawyers, legislators and judges by holding
the govt to the Constitution, but Trump threw him under the bus and let the media keep running over him.

He would need to support the Cruz and Tea Party Constitutionalists if anyone is going to check and correct the corrupt legal and court system that favors corporate interests that profit off politics as usual. If Trump just seeks to buy people out as well, I think the Clintons have already done that in order to cover up their past.

If Trump cannot pull the strings enough to expose their history, he doesn't have enough to win the election.

 

[Coyote]

Don't even go there and say this is racist and they hate Iranians. This is different from the Trump U case, no it really is......




Should Shared Ancestry Force A Judge's Recusal?

well, it really is different.

they asked her to recuse herself from cases involving Iranians because of her political advocacy towards Iranians.

Not because of her Iranian heritage.

Trump's claim was that Cuzial should be removed because he is Mexican- (he isn't) because Trump made building a wall the central piece of his campaign, which has nothing to do about whether he defrauded people who paid for Trump University classes.

That's a big distinction.

 

[Syriusly]

Don't even go there and say this is racist and they hate Iranians. This is different from the Trump U case, no it really is......




Should Shared Ancestry Force A Judge's Recusal?

I think that there was no reason to require the judge to recuse herself.

Just like there is no reason for Judge Curiel to recuse himself.

 

[Syriusly]

The case was settled in the attorney's favor. So anyone attempting to analogize this and the Curiel/Trump case, using this as a precedent of any sort...

...Curiel wins.

Literally, case closed.

U.S. Government Settles Lawsuit Filed By Iranian-American Judge

No more threads based on half-truths!

Yep- just like Judge Curiel- there was no basis for excluding the immigration judge just because of her Iranian heritage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dear SwimExpert sure you can make a distinction there.

Erm, no. There is no "can" about it. Any attempt to compare this judge to Curiel is entirely without merit. Period.

WUT?

Dear Contumacious
I think the points SwimExpert and NYcarbineer are trying to make

1. Difference in the CONTENT of the cases and the relation to the Judge:
In the case of Trump, the argument is the CASE is about FRAUD not DIRECTLY about immigration,
and the possible prejudice against Trump is based on his "stance on immigration" outside the case
(while the conflict on the Judge's side is either argued based on association with pro-immigrant groups that have denounced Trump, or statements made in the media complaining the Judge being "Mexican" implies the Judge is a sympathizer on the side of "Mexican immigrants" and supposedly against Trump)

2. The fact the Iranian-American case was settled in favor of removing the limitation and letting the complainant preside over cases shows this example is a poor one to use that makes the opposite point.

3. I would argue further it makes a STRONGER case against Trump because
a. the justice system reversed the restriction that either being Iranian-American and/or also
attending meetings related to that was grounds for recusal by appearance of conflicts (and even paid a fine)
b. the conflicts were more directly tied to the subject of the case(s)
In Trump's case the fraud arguments are not the issue
but bias for or against Trump for his immigration views which is arguably indirectly or not at all related.

Other people keep thinking Trump can weasel his way out of this
and can also swing the election and get more voters to come out than Hillary can.

We'll see who has more political or legal pull to push cases against both of them, or to weasel out of them.

I am guessing Hillary can better maneuver out of her situation and get more support because all the lawyers and the judges they support will bail out a lawyer who will keep the system going so lawyers can profit.

It will be interesting if the conflict of interest that comes up is the legal profession
and the ongoing monopoly of lawyers and judges that keep their influence and interests in power.

Because Trump is not a lawyer, if he threatens that system he can either fall victim to it or finally overthrow
this secular theocracy going on worshipping the federal courts and Supreme Court as the word of God.

I don't think he is strong enough to overcome it.

I think the people running the system still support Bill and Hillary Clinton
for their job and economic security. The people who can beat the lawyers are their own games
are either the Constitutionalists and/or Christians or both, and Trump is neither one of those.
Cruz was the best bet for beating the corrupt lawyers, legislators and judges by holding
the govt to the Constitution, but Trump threw him under the bus and let the media keep running over him.

He would need to support the Cruz and Tea Party Constitutionalists if anyone is going to check and correct the corrupt legal and court system that favors corporate interests that profit off politics as usual. If Trump just seeks to buy people out as well, I think the Clintons have already done that in order to cover up their past.

If Trump cannot pull the strings enough to expose their history, he doesn't have enough to win the election.

The point I made is that the Iranian judge WON.

 

[Contumacious]

Dear SwimExpert sure you can make a distinction there.

Erm, no. There is no "can" about it. Any attempt to compare this judge to Curiel is entirely without merit. Period.

WUT?

Dear Contumacious
I think the points SwimExpert and NYcarbineer are trying to make

1. Difference in the CONTENT of the cases and the relation to the Judge:
In the case of Trump, the argument is the CASE is about FRAUD not DIRECTLY about immigration,
and the possible prejudice against Trump is based on his "stance on immigration" outside the case
(while the conflict on the Judge's side is either argued based on association with pro-immigrant groups that have denounced Trump, or statements made in the media complaining the Judge being "Mexican" implies the Judge is a sympathizer on the side of "Mexican immigrants" and supposedly against Trump)

2. The fact the Iranian-American case was settled in favor of removing the limitation and letting the complainant preside over cases shows this example is a poor one to use that makes the opposite point.

3. I would argue further it makes a STRONGER case against Trump because
a. the justice system reversed the restriction that either being Iranian-American and/or also
attending meetings related to that was grounds for recusal by appearance of conflicts (and even paid a fine)
b. the conflicts were more directly tied to the subject of the case(s)
In Trump's case the fraud arguments are not the issue
but bias for or against Trump for his immigration views which is arguably indirectly or not at all related.

Other people keep thinking Trump can weasel his way out of this
and can also swing the election and get more voters to come out than Hillary can.

We'll see who has more political or legal pull to push cases against both of them, or to weasel out of them.

I am guessing Hillary can better maneuver out of her situation and get more support because all the lawyers and the judges they support will bail out a lawyer who will keep the system going so lawyers can profit.

It will be interesting if the conflict of interest that comes up is the legal profession
and the ongoing monopoly of lawyers and judges that keep their influence and interests in power.

Because Trump is not a lawyer, if he threatens that system he can either fall victim to it or finally overthrow
this secular theocracy going on worshipping the federal courts and Supreme Court as the word of God.

I don't think he is strong enough to overcome it.

I think the people running the system still support Bill and Hillary Clinton
for their job and economic security. The people who can beat the lawyers are their own games
are either the Constitutionalists and/or Christians or both, and Trump is neither one of those.
Cruz was the best bet for beating the corrupt lawyers, legislators and judges by holding
the govt to the Constitution, but Trump threw him under the bus and let the media keep running over him.

He would need to support the Cruz and Tea Party Constitutionalists if anyone is going to check and correct the corrupt legal and court system that favors corporate interests that profit off politics as usual. If Trump just seeks to buy people out as well, I think the Clintons have already done that in order to cover up their past.

If Trump cannot pull the strings enough to expose their history, he doesn't have enough to win the election.

No, actually is YOU who is missing the point.


The judge in Trump's case is ruling against him because he perceives Trump to be anti-Mexican. The judge heritage is Mexican His parents came here under the brazero program.

 

[easyt65]

What a racist

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dear SwimExpert sure you can make a distinction there.

Erm, no. There is no "can" about it. Any attempt to compare this judge to Curiel is entirely without merit. Period.

WUT?

Dear Contumacious
I think the points SwimExpert and NYcarbineer are trying to make

1. Difference in the CONTENT of the cases and the relation to the Judge:
In the case of Trump, the argument is the CASE is about FRAUD not DIRECTLY about immigration,
and the possible prejudice against Trump is based on his "stance on immigration" outside the case
(while the conflict on the Judge's side is either argued based on association with pro-immigrant groups that have denounced Trump, or statements made in the media complaining the Judge being "Mexican" implies the Judge is a sympathizer on the side of "Mexican immigrants" and supposedly against Trump)

2. The fact the Iranian-American case was settled in favor of removing the limitation and letting the complainant preside over cases shows this example is a poor one to use that makes the opposite point.

3. I would argue further it makes a STRONGER case against Trump because
a. the justice system reversed the restriction that either being Iranian-American and/or also
attending meetings related to that was grounds for recusal by appearance of conflicts (and even paid a fine)
b. the conflicts were more directly tied to the subject of the case(s)
In Trump's case the fraud arguments are not the issue
but bias for or against Trump for his immigration views which is arguably indirectly or not at all related.

Other people keep thinking Trump can weasel his way out of this
and can also swing the election and get more voters to come out than Hillary can.

We'll see who has more political or legal pull to push cases against both of them, or to weasel out of them.

I am guessing Hillary can better maneuver out of her situation and get more support because all the lawyers and the judges they support will bail out a lawyer who will keep the system going so lawyers can profit.

It will be interesting if the conflict of interest that comes up is the legal profession
and the ongoing monopoly of lawyers and judges that keep their influence and interests in power.

Because Trump is not a lawyer, if he threatens that system he can either fall victim to it or finally overthrow
this secular theocracy going on worshipping the federal courts and Supreme Court as the word of God.

I don't think he is strong enough to overcome it.

I think the people running the system still support Bill and Hillary Clinton
for their job and economic security. The people who can beat the lawyers are their own games
are either the Constitutionalists and/or Christians or both, and Trump is neither one of those.
Cruz was the best bet for beating the corrupt lawyers, legislators and judges by holding
the govt to the Constitution, but Trump threw him under the bus and let the media keep running over him.

He would need to support the Cruz and Tea Party Constitutionalists if anyone is going to check and correct the corrupt legal and court system that favors corporate interests that profit off politics as usual. If Trump just seeks to buy people out as well, I think the Clintons have already done that in order to cover up their past.

If Trump cannot pull the strings enough to expose their history, he doesn't have enough to win the election.

No, actually is YOU who is missing the point.


The judge in Trump's case is ruling against him because he perceives Trump to be anti-Mexican. The judge heritage is Mexican His parents came here under the brazero program.

Hey, retard, you have no way whatsoever of backing up that claim, so shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.