Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

You haven't even tried to reconcile the positions, DSL. You're just repeating shit now without even addressing the point Hanni and I raised.

Yeah, it's bullshit. I wouldn't judge anyone's ability based on race or ethnicity or religion or gender. I would never argue that someone being Black means they can't do something or, conversely, someone being black means they can do something better -- merely because of their race.

I hope you agree and will join with me (and Hannibal) in shitting on a bedrock rationale for diversity.

[Hannibal]

I don't care. From my perspective, as an attorney, you don't actively try to piss off the judge trying your case. Everyone has been stuck with a bad judge. In some instances, it's clear the judge doesn't like your case at all. You have to deal with it -- and IMO that does not including publicly attacking said judge.

Since you are the expert in this area, I'll have to take your word for it. But -- serious question -- let's say that Trump is right and this guy is really out to fuck him over. Does calling attention to this possibility not make the guy try harder to prove that he is unbiased? If not, does it not give Trump a built in PR excuse for losing the case or settling? I guess what I'm trying to say is it seems like there might be some method to this madness, as their usually has been so far with Trump.

[entropy]

will be the next President of the United States of America.

agree. Trump isn't electable. Sadly, I don't think Clinton is either, but Trump's words mean more than Clinton's behavior. Hence, I think she wins big.

[Hannibal]

Real Clear Politics has Clinton leading by a whopping two points, and that's without a single debate and with Clinton doing nothing but giving speeches and interviews in extremely controlled environments for about the last six months (other than debates with an extremely milquetoast candidate who didn't attack her much).

[entropy]

Trump will be owned in the debates. It's not his strength. Clinton is much better at saying a lot without saying a thing. JMO

[iam416]

Since you are the expert in this area, I'll have to take your word for it. But -- serious question -- let's say that Trump is right and this guy is really out to fuck him over. Does calling attention to this possibility not make the guy try harder to prove that he is unbiased? If not, does it not give Trump a built in PR excuse for losing the case or settling?

I'm not an expert in this area. I have some experience in this area. Stan has been in front of a lot more judges than me and with far greater variance.

If Trump is already in PR mode, then that's fine, I guess -- if he's already conceded he'll lose, then there's no harm. But otherwise -- man, I don't get it. The judge has to make sure his rulings will stand up on appeal. He knows Trump will appeal (if he loses), so he can't go batshit crazy. Every judge I've been in front of, whether they liked my client or not, want to at least try to follow the law.

I guess the one thing, I suppose, is that he can issue rulings that can't be undone prior to the election. So, if he's willing to risk his reputation, he can create some modest problems. But, man...I don't see it. It's definitely more of play from Trump to polish up what is probably (IMO) a turd of a case.

[Hannibal]

Trump will be owned in the debates. It's not his strength. Clinton is much better at saying a lot without saying a thing. JMO

I think that the opposite will happen. Clinton won't be able to get away with not saying a thing, because Trump won't let her. He destroyed his Republican opponents in the debates despite being attacked on all sides, like Israel kicking Arab ass in a two front war.

If you think that Clinton will do great in the debates, watch her in her Benghazi testimony or in the press conference where she is in that orange pantsuit and she gets asked questions about wiping her e-mail server. She melts down when she gets confronted with anything, which is why she is rarely outside of a controlled environment. Trump is going to give her the roughest treatment that she has ever gotten, and he's not going to back down when the media attacks him as being "mean spirited". If Clinton is such a great debater then why is it she can't even put away an old cranky, lesser funded Socialist with the charisma of a pregnant spider?

[Dr. Strangelove]

lol @ thinking Trump's making some sort of philosophical point or that it's all part of a brilliant strategy.

How about going with the guy's simply a bigot? Is that really less plausible than "oh Trump really just wanted to point out the double standard implicit in the rationale for greater racial diversity on the bench"?

So sure, Talent, I'll happily share your sentiments that there's nothing inherently superior to 'diversity'. Now I'll wait for Hanni to join us in condemning Trump's remarks.

[Hannibal]

Does this mean that wer are going to condemn "diversity" now? Cool. I guess that's a good start.

Like I said, the faux outrage over Trump's "bigotry" really is adorable.

Tomorrow we'll be talking again about how Trump's illegal immigration policies alienate Hispanic voters, even though theoretically they shouldn't because "illegal immigrant" and "Hispanic" aren't synonymous, and theoretically a legal Hispanic votter should be just as opposed to illegal immigration as a legal non-Hispanic voter. But we know that's not the case, and this is totally cool.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Does this mean that wer are going to condemn "diversity" now? Cool. I guess that's a good start.

Like I said, the faux outrage over Trump's "bigotry" really is adorable.

I condemn the idea that being a particular race makes you more capable/less capable of doing your job. Apparently you and Trump disagree

[iam416]

How about going with the guy's simply a bigot? Is that really less plausible than "oh Trump really just wanted to point out the double standard implicit in the rationale for greater racial diversity on the bench"?

FYI, I think my post is clear that I didn't attribute any such thing to Trump. His position just made me think of the diversity rationale. I also think Hanni is of the same mind.

As for being a "bigot," I guess if you're a bigot if you use race as a proxy for a negative, but you're not if you use race as a proxy for a positive even though, of course, you're implying a negative (a "wise latina" will handle this particularly case better/a white/black dude can't handle this case as well).

Look, man, I fucking hate identity politics. FUCKING HATE THEM. So you know where I'm coming from. It's probably the principle reason I'm no longer a full-on D. I'm all aboard MLK's "content of character" approach. But over the past 10-15 years you've seen things gently drift past "content of character" back to "color of their skin". I don't happen to think that the way to combat identity politics is more identity politics -- to side with my tribe because everyone else is doing it. F that. So I'll continue to quote MLK and continue to try to make any identity-based argument look stupid.

Trump's position is utter nonsense. Using "Mexican" as a proxy for competence is nonsense. He deserves to get called out for it -- and others who would use race/ethnicity as a proxy for competence deserve similar scorn.

[Hannibal]

Look, man, I fucking hate identity politics. FUCKING HATE THEM. So you know where I'm coming from. It's probably the principle reason I'm no longer a full-on D. I'm all aboard MLK's "content of character" approach. But over the past 10-15 years you've seen things gently drift past "content of character" back to "color of their skin".

You are wrong. People's attitudes haven't drifted back because most of the world was never about "content of character" to begin with. This is the very unfortunate and unpleasant truth that has become gradually more obvious to me. The only ethnicity that has ever considered tribal/racial identity a moral wrong on a widespread basis is white people (and even then, the only form of racial identity politics that is considered "bad" is identifying as white. In the U.S. it has been perfectly fine to identify as black, Asian, Jew, Hispanic, etc for my entire life). That hasn't changed. What has changed in the West is demographics. People for whom racial identity politics are perfectly acceptable are pouring into countries like the U.S., Sweden, German, Britain, etc much faster than the native populations of those countries are reproducing. You can ignore racial identity when the people who embrace racial identity only make up 15% of the population. You can't ignore the issue when those people make up 40% of the population. We're trending that way and you don't need a crystal ball to see what the consequences are going to be.

[Hannibal]

Trump's position is utter nonsense. Using "Mexican" as a proxy for competence is nonsense. He deserves to get called out for it -- and others who would use race/ethnicity as a proxy for competence deserve similar scorn.

He's not calling into question his competence. He's calling into question his impartiality.

[iam416]

Yeah, I understand, but competence/impartiality go hand in hand. He's saying he's not competent to hear THIS case b/c he's biased. Impartiality is one threshold for competence.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Not to go back to Brazil but the state's top prosecutor just requested arrest warrants for the leader of the Senate, the head of the current governing party, and at least one of the ministers who just resigned. All Temer allies and part of the new govt

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-politics-idUSKCN0YT1H6