Turkey fans BOO during pre-match minute's silence for the victims of Paris attacks an

[Unregistered]

Show me another group that EXCLUSIVELY promotes their own kind.

Why use La Raza then ?

The " rest of the country" is getting tired of the pandering and PC that Democrats and some Repubs have been dishing out for years. All of this because of what was SAID, ignoring what has actually happened.

Yes, the race card, a favorite of Progressives. People are getting tired of it.

Knights of Columbus, John Birch Society to name two. There are others.

[Unregistered]

Hugh Hewitt Calls For Convention To Reject Trump

Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt argued Wednesday morning that the Republican Party should make an unprecedented effort to change the Republican National Convention rules to allow them to dump Donald Trump as their nominee.

“It’s like ignoring stage-four cancer. You can’t do it, you gotta go attack it,” Hewitt said. “And right now the Republican Party is facing — the plane is headed towards the mountain after the last 72 hours.”

Hewitt said he disagreed with Republican senators like Lindsey Graham and Mark Kirk who said they could not vote for their party’s nominee. “I wanna support the nominee of the party, but I think the party ought to change the nominee. Because we’re going to get killed with this nominee.”

“They ought to get together and let the convention decide,” he concluded. “And if Donald Trump pulls over a makeover in the next 4 to 5 weeks, great, they can keep him. It would be better if he had done so 5 weeks ago.”

For the record, Hewitt has never been a real Trump fan and there have been insults directed at him by Trump:

“A year ago you told me on my radio show — the audio and transcript are out there on YouTube — that you would release your tax returns,” offered Hewitt.

At the debate to counter Hewitt’s move, Trump preemptively blurted out, “First of all, very few people listen to your radio show. That’s the good news. Let me just tell you — which happens to be true. Check out the ratings.”

This is not the first time that a Trump-Hewitt interaction has turned sour; in September, the GOP candidate lashed out against Hewitt after a “gotcha” question on The Hugh Hewitt Show (the same one that “very few people listen to”) regarding the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The exchange called into question Trump’s readiness on foreign policy, and left the candidate scrambling on the campaign trail for several weeks afterwards.

Even so, this is pretty incredible. For all of Hewitt's strengths, his weakness has always been, in my view that he's the consummate company man. The party insider. The guy the "important" people go to get their message out. Throughout the Bush administration, Hewitt manfully bought whatever the Bush Administration was selling, no matter how it transparently bad it was, like the Harriet Miers nomination. To see Hewitt actually advocate removing Trump as a candidate is truly amazing.

[Unregistered]

It was racial bias during the jury selection process, not racism by the white jurors.
You're not really that dense are you?

So racial bias matters?

[Unregistered]

So racial bias matters?

This sums it up ...

"...courts have consistently ruled judges are no more inherently biased if they are black, or female, or gay than they would be inherently fair if they were white, or male, or straight."

[Unregistered]

This sums it up ...

"...courts have consistently ruled judges are no more inherently biased if they are black, or female, or gay than they would be inherently fair if they were white, or male, or straight."

But juries tend to be more biased than judges?

[Unregistered]

But juries tend to be more biased than judges?

You are desperate aren't you?

[Unregistered]

You are desperate aren't you?

Just answer the question.

[Unregistered]

Just answer the question.

Why don't you just read what the legal community has to say?

[Unregistered]

Why don't you just read what the legal community has to say?

The Supreme Court just ruled that racial bias existed in jury and has cleared the way for a new trial.

So if a jury (which by definition is made up of multiple people) can act in a biased way based upon their own racial make up how can that same metric not be applied to a single person, a judge?

[Unregistered]

Knights of Columbus, John Birch Society to name two. There are others.

Those are not Organizations that have lawyers and Judges as exclusive members.

We are talking about an organization of Judges and Lawyers that are only interested in promoting the status of a Latino.

[Unregistered]

Let's get this straight. Questioning whether a Latino judge is potentially biased based on his ethnicity is racist. He would be neutral and rule on the facts presented in the case.

But white jurors are definitely racist when convicting a black man of killing a white woman as the Supreme Court just ruled?

Can't have it both ways. Which is it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/us...rgia.html?_r=0

How can ethnicity be racial bias?
It isn't racial. It is based on his heritage and his MEMBERSHIP in a Organization of Latino Judges and lawyers whose sole purpose is to promote other Latinos in their profession.

Progressives try and pull out the race card , and idiots like Ryan don't call them out on it.

[Unregistered]

This sums it up ...

"...courts have consistently ruled judges are no more inherently biased if they are black, or female, or gay than they would be inherently fair if they were white, or male, or straight."

Seems like a member of the Supreme Court would disagree with that quote.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...awyers-federal

[Unregistered]

The Supreme Court just ruled that racial bias existed in jury and has cleared the way for a new trial.

So if a jury (which by definition is made up of multiple people) can act in a biased way based upon their own racial make up how can that same metric not be applied to a single person, a judge?

excerpted from this article...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/actions-s...224338852.html

"But legal experts say that Petrocelli would have little to no chance of prevailing in a legal motion to recuse Curiel because of perceived bias due to his ethnic background — a major reason he has pointedly failed to file such a motion. “It would have zero legal merit,” said Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor who specializes in legal ethics. “A judge’s ethnicity, gender and race is never a grounds for recusal. It’s quite clear. A lawyer would not make that motion without fear of being sanctioned.”

Why don't you bone up on the law and ethics and get back to us.

[Unregistered]

excerpted from this article...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/actions-s...224338852.html

"But legal experts say that Petrocelli would have little to no chance of prevailing in a legal motion to recuse Curiel because of perceived bias due to his ethnic background — a major reason he has pointedly failed to file such a motion. “It would have zero legal merit,” said Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor who specializes in legal ethics. “A judge’s ethnicity, gender and race is never a grounds for recusal. It’s quite clear. A lawyer would not make that motion without fear of being sanctioned.”

Why don't you bone up on the law and ethics and get back to us.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...awyers-federal

[Unregistered]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...awyers-federal

“The survey and the focus conducted by the committee make one thing absolutely clear: on the whole, attorneys think that judges and courts of the Second Circuit are fair, and that they enjoy practicing in the federal system. Over and over, participants in the various studies compared the operations of the Second Circuit’s courts favorably to the courts of the states in the circuit. In short, most lawyers, most of the time, think that the federal courts are fair and good institutions.”