Does race, ethnicity, gender and religion of judges cause them to be bias?

Clementine

Platinum Member
Dec 18, 2011
12,919
4,826
350
Hispanic judge, Sonia Sotomayor, believes that the ethnicity and gender of a judge will make a difference in the way they judge a case.

She doesn't seem to agree with Justice Ginsburg or Sandra Day O'Connor that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding a case. Technically, they should since they must make their decisions according to laws. It's no secret that the left prefers legislating from the bench rather than following the laws on the books. So, does Trump have a point when he expresses concern over a Hispanic judge? I don't think it's about the judge being Hispanic so much as it is about any judge being liberal. The left has long criticized conservative judges who follow the law and constitution to the letter. They are more interested in changing it than following it.

So why is Donald Trump being criticized for saying the same thing? Sotomayer was bascially saying that being a Hispanic woman means that she will judge differently from a white male. Isn't that admitting a bias based on ethnicity or sex? And should a white male be concerned about being judged by such a person? We know that minorities often claim bias when a judge or jury members are white. Doesn't this go both ways? If the left is correct that minorities don't get a fair deal, how can they justify doing the same to others? If Sotomayer was being honest, then one should expect that a judge will rule in a biased manner based on ethnicity.

If that is so, then how is it fair for Trump University case to be decided by a Hispanic judge who could very well hold a grudge over Trump's proposed border security. The left certainly seems to think that all Hispanics think alike, whether they are legal citizens or illegal aliens. Would the same then be true if a Muslim judge was presiding over a case involving someone who wants to deny Muslim refugees till they can be vetted?

This is an example of both sides having it both ways. Do we automatically expect bias these days? If it's a problem, then we need to address it. It shouldn't matter which race, ethnicity or gender a judge is because the constitution should have the last word. Judges should never be allowed to ignore or change any part of that. Is this finally an admission that legislating from the bench is not only common but that we are helpless to do anything about it? If we have rampant bias in all the lower courts, then the Supreme Court is the final recourse when seeking justice. If we cannot trust them to be fair and honest, we are in big trouble.



"In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.


"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life," said Judge Sotomayor, before she was confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice.

Judge Sotomayor has given several speeches about the importance of diversity. But her 2001 remarks at Berkeley, which were published by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, went further, asserting that judges’ identities will affect legal outcomes.

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences," she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.""

http://www.allenbwest.com/michele/flashback-supreme-court-judge-confirms-trumps-greatest-fear
 
Hispanic judge, Sonia Sotomayor, believes that the ethnicity and gender of a judge will make a difference in the way they judge a case.

She doesn't seem to agree with Justice Ginsburg or Sandra Day O'Connor that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding a case. Technically, they should since they must make their decisions according to laws. It's no secret that the left prefers legislating from the bench rather than following the laws on the books. So, does Trump have a point when he expresses concern over a Hispanic judge? I don't think it's about the judge being Hispanic so much as it is about any judge being liberal. The left has long criticized conservative judges who follow the law and constitution to the letter. They are more interested in changing it than following it.

So why is Donald Trump being criticized for saying the same thing? Sotomayer was bascially saying that being a Hispanic woman means that she will judge differently from a white male. Isn't that admitting a bias based on ethnicity or sex? And should a white male be concerned about being judged by such a person? We know that minorities often claim bias when a judge or jury members are white. Doesn't this go both ways? If the left is correct that minorities don't get a fair deal, how can they justify doing the same to others? If Sotomayer was being honest, then one should expect that a judge will rule in a biased manner based on ethnicity.

If that is so, then how is it fair for Trump University case to be decided by a Hispanic judge who could very well hold a grudge over Trump's proposed border security. The left certainly seems to think that all Hispanics think alike, whether they are legal citizens or illegal aliens. Would the same then be true if a Muslim judge was presiding over a case involving someone who wants to deny Muslim refugees till they can be vetted?

This is an example of both sides having it both ways. Do we automatically expect bias these days? If it's a problem, then we need to address it. It shouldn't matter which race, ethnicity or gender a judge is because the constitution should have the last word. Judges should never be allowed to ignore or change any part of that. Is this finally an admission that legislating from the bench is not only common but that we are helpless to do anything about it? If we have rampant bias in all the lower courts, then the Supreme Court is the final recourse when seeking justice. If we cannot trust them to be fair and honest, we are in big trouble.



"In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.


"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life," said Judge Sotomayor, before she was confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice.

Judge Sotomayor has given several speeches about the importance of diversity. But her 2001 remarks at Berkeley, which were published by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, went further, asserting that judges’ identities will affect legal outcomes.

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences," she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.""

http://www.allenbwest.com/michele/flashback-supreme-court-judge-confirms-trumps-greatest-fear

Yo, they should judge by the Law, but most try to be Law Makers!!!

"GTP"
2ab92dd9b9ecbd3ed070a7758b2102be.jpg
 
Every person is inherently biased. The best people can do is to realize this and attempt to act fairly with respected to what they consider to be true. Some are better able to do this than others.
 
I don't think she's talking bias, more like experience . As a Hispanic woman she's probably seen life In a different context than say a white man .

This is nothing bad .
 
Every person is inherently biased. The best people can do is to realize this and attempt to act fairly with respected to what they consider to be true. Some are better able to do this than others.

The law is the law, regardless of personal feelings. There have been judges that went against the law because they thought they were doing the right thing. On the other hand, many judges stated that the law can be an ass and that they had to follow it no matter what.

So, which do we want? Truth is that we need judges to ignore their personal feelings and follow the law. There is no other way of doing it. While some may think that allowing them to do what they think is right should be allowed, the fact is that once we go down that road, there is no going back. And what some might think is right is actually harmful. We have laws for a reason.

Judges are human and will have strong feelings on cases, but following the law to the letter is the only acceptable course. I worry about those who won't do that.

It doesn't matter what your experiences or personal feelings are since upholding the law is your priority and there will be times that the legal thing to do will completely go against their bias. If they can't accept that, they are not qualified to be a judge.

Following the law may mean that a guilty person goes free because there isn't enough evidence, but we can't allow the courts to do as they please regardless of evidence or what the law allows.

When it comes to deciding whether something is constitutional or not, we definitely cannot ignore the constitution. Bad enough that some are trying to change it, ignore it or claim that it means something other than it says. There have been times when they disagreed with the law and sought to change it. Obamacare was an example of how they had to make assumptions and guess what was intended. If something isn't clear, it shouldn't hold up in court.
 
Does race, ethnicity, gender and religion of judges cause them to be bias?

It may cause them to be biased. I think we.can all be biased but more because of our experiences as a member of a specific race, ethnicity, gender and religion. But I'll add that physical appearance, behavior and environment are bigger factors that form bias.

For example - a tall, handsome, well mannered Brown man who lives in New York City might think racism is not an issue because he doesn't encounter a lot of hate or mistreatment. But that perspective is totally alien to the short, ugly, ill mannered Brown man who lives in Childress, TX who encounters a lot of hate or mistreatment.
 
First, physical features matter. We don't like to believe that but that's just a human trait. Second, behavior matters. No one likes a jerk. Third, NYC is a more integrated and liberal environment than Childress.

So even if they're both Brown men their experiences with racism could be vastly different. And their judgement of non-Brown people will accordingly be more or less biased as a result.
 
Does a judge's support of La Raza mean he's biased?

Yes.

Why isn't Trump filing to remove this judge?
He can't! The judge does not have a personal tie to the case nor anyone associated with it.

If the lawyers were to suggest that the judge recuse himself because of his heritage, they will only gain a pissed off judge--even if Curiel recused himself!!

The real question is:Why is Trump talking about this case? Does he think he can win? Or is he trying to convince people he has been treated unfairly before he loses the case? It really does not make sense.
 
Hispanic judge, Sonia Sotomayor, believes that the ethnicity and gender of a judge will make a difference in the way they judge a case.

She doesn't seem to agree with Justice Ginsburg or Sandra Day O'Connor that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding a case. Technically, they should since they must make their decisions according to laws. It's no secret that the left prefers legislating from the bench rather than following the laws on the books. So, does Trump have a point when he expresses concern over a Hispanic judge? I don't think it's about the judge being Hispanic so much as it is about any judge being liberal. The left has long criticized conservative judges who follow the law and constitution to the letter. They are more interested in changing it than following it.

So why is Donald Trump being criticized for saying the same thing? Sotomayer was bascially saying that being a Hispanic woman means that she will judge differently from a white male. Isn't that admitting a bias based on ethnicity or sex? And should a white male be concerned about being judged by such a person? We know that minorities often claim bias when a judge or jury members are white. Doesn't this go both ways? If the left is correct that minorities don't get a fair deal, how can they justify doing the same to others? If Sotomayer was being honest, then one should expect that a judge will rule in a biased manner based on ethnicity.

If that is so, then how is it fair for Trump University case to be decided by a Hispanic judge who could very well hold a grudge over Trump's proposed border security. The left certainly seems to think that all Hispanics think alike, whether they are legal citizens or illegal aliens. Would the same then be true if a Muslim judge was presiding over a case involving someone who wants to deny Muslim refugees till they can be vetted?

This is an example of both sides having it both ways. Do we automatically expect bias these days? If it's a problem, then we need to address it. It shouldn't matter which race, ethnicity or gender a judge is because the constitution should have the last word. Judges should never be allowed to ignore or change any part of that. Is this finally an admission that legislating from the bench is not only common but that we are helpless to do anything about it? If we have rampant bias in all the lower courts, then the Supreme Court is the final recourse when seeking justice. If we cannot trust them to be fair and honest, we are in big trouble.



"In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.


"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life," said Judge Sotomayor, before she was confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice.

Judge Sotomayor has given several speeches about the importance of diversity. But her 2001 remarks at Berkeley, which were published by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, went further, asserting that judges’ identities will affect legal outcomes.

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences," she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.""

http://www.allenbwest.com/michele/flashback-supreme-court-judge-confirms-trumps-greatest-fear

Does Trump have a point in regard to a Hispanic judge? No. A Hispanic judge can be as fair as any other.

But that isn't the point, Gonzalo Curiel is part of La Raza, a member of the Mexican Ku Klux Klan that translates literally to "the race."

That Curiel is part of the Klan is bias in and of itself. A member of a race hate group has no business on the bench in the first place. Gonzalo Curiel is not fit to be a federal judge on merit of his Klan affiliation.

IF a person belongs to La Raza, Aryan Nations, Nation of Islam, etc. they are not fit to judge people. They have already signaled that they are racist and biased.
 
Every person is inherently biased. The best people can do is to realize this and attempt to act fairly with respected to what they consider to be true. Some are better able to do this than others.

The very act of jointing a race hate group like La Raza is proof that the person cannot act fairly.

If you're in the Klan, you have no business on the bench, simple as that.
 
Trump has promised he would appoint pro-life judges to the SCOTUS.

That's a promise to appoint biased judges.

But they have to respect the law. I think it's good to keep things fairly balanced to ensure that bias doesn't prevail over law. Having the court loaded with bias people who would judge according to their personal beliefs over the written law does not bode well for anyone.
 
Does a judge's support of La Raza mean he's biased?

Yes.

Why isn't Trump filing to remove this judge?
He can't! The judge does not have a personal tie to the case nor anyone associated with it.

If the lawyers were to suggest that the judge recuse himself because of his heritage, they will only gain a pissed off judge--even if Curiel recused himself!!

The real question is:Why is Trump talking about this case? Does he think he can win? Or is he trying to convince people he has been treated unfairly before he loses the case? It really does not make sense.


I think any judge that belongs to a radical group should be removed from the bench. LaRaza is a radical group and they are not supportive of America. They exist to promote Hispanic rights, specifically illegal alien rights.
 
Does a judge's support of La Raza mean he's biased?

Yes.

Why isn't Trump filing to remove this judge?
He can't! The judge does not have a personal tie to the case nor anyone associated with it.

If the lawyers were to suggest that the judge recuse himself because of his heritage, they will only gain a pissed off judge--even if Curiel recused himself!!

The real question is:Why is Trump talking about this case? Does he think he can win? Or is he trying to convince people he has been treated unfairly before he loses the case? It really does not make sense.

He won't legally challenge the Judge because he knows he'll lose the challenge. He would rather have the Judge on the case so when Trump loses the case itself,

he has a ready made poisoned-the-well excuse as to why he lost because of bias, not because he was liable.
 

Forum List

Back
Top