https://andrewpegoda.com/2013/10/23/judge-higginbotham-i-concede-that-i-am-black-1974-lesser-known-past-voices-series-1/

The broader idea is a problem too. Maybe, someone has the wrong religion?

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/catholic-judges-response-motion-recuse-himself

Or maybe sexual orientation?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2010/08/12/176922/walker-recusal/

[Seemed to me that heterosexual married couples were self-interested there too going by that logic -- their marriages were being "defended" after all.]
 

He's not just of Mexican heritage. That's trivial. He's also a member of the La Raza Lawyers of California. Which is rather less trivial.

Racism. Not pretty, not even in members of The Race.
 

Trump cited him be a Mexican in particular, which is not "trivial." It is racist.

There's a basic principle involved here and GM's citation of Judge Garza is just an example. The citation of his race is but an example. He was a Marine. Yes, especially from what we know of his overall career, he could be trusted if some anti-military litigant came in front of him. He is a strong Catholic. A group that is open to criticism. We can trust him to fairly adjudicate if an anti-Catholic was in front of him, especially if it wasn't even a religious matter at hand. This shouldn't be hard to understand. It apparently is.

"La Raza Lawyers of California is an non-profit association organized in 1977 to support Chicano and Latino Lawyers in California and serve as a statewide network for local affiliate La Raza Lawyers Groups. We meet quarterly at various locations around the state and represent 16 different local organizations with over 2,000 attorneys."

http://larazalawyers.net/

The idea that any one of these 2000 attorneys merely because they belong to a group with "La Raza" in its name can't be trusted or doesn't quite think themselves as true Americans but "Mexicans" is rank stereotyping. It is again wrong no matter who is involved, be it this, a gun owner, a conservative Trump supporter from South Carolina or whomever.

At least for Brett here, people -- wrongly or not -- can get a sense given past comments. What exactly in this judge's past (perhaps his work as a prosecutor against a Mexican drug cartel?) warrants this sort of thing? And, again, as seen by my links, a range of people sometimes fall into this sort of trap.

Racism and stereotyping. Not pretty. Indeed.
 

"Trump cited him be a Mexican in particular, which is not "trivial." It is racist."

Look, I know it's pointless, the left use "racist" as an all purpose, content free epithet, but anyway: Mexican is a nationality, not a race. And, yeah, that means Trump was wrong. But it doesn't mean he was a racist.

And I don't have to pretend that La Raza isn't an ethnic supremacy movement, and that people who use the term don't know that.

We've got people rioting at Trump rallies, waving Mexican flags, and assaulting people, and I'm not going to blame the victims. Not many people whose minds aren't already rotted are.
 

The joke is on Trump. His lawyers, not the plaintiffs', asked for a postponement of the trial till after the election. A percentage play: if the trial had gone ahead and Trump won, it would have helped him slightly in the election; if he lost, it would cost him votes, possibly many votes. Clearly the lawyers thought there was a significant risk of losing. But either way, it would have been over. The postponement means that the issue will be unresolved. The accusations, backed by sworn affidavits from former employees as well as customers, are on the record. Hillary Clinton has started to use them. After another $10m of advertising, no voter in a swing state will be unaware of the sharp practice. What's the defence? "Caveat emptor?" Good law but lousy politics.
 

Brett: is AIPAC an "ethnic supremacy movement"?
 

Mexican is a nationality, not a race. And, yeah, that means Trump was wrong. But it doesn't mean he was a racist.

Trump has proved he's a racist/white supremacist many times over the last 30 years. A technical defense based upon parsing words in this particular case isn't very persuasive.
 

I was just watching the Decades channel while lunching at home. It featured a segment of events that started on June 3, 1942, called the Zoot Suit Riots that occurred in LA, involving weeks of racial attacks on Mexican Americans. LA has had a long history of racial violences going back many decades earlier.

A quick Google search will reveal the rather significant portion of Mexicans designated as non-white. A nationality can include different races. Not all Mexican-Americans look alike. Growing up in Boston in the 1930s, '40s, I learned of various ethnic groups living in the Boston Area. But I was not aware of anyone who was Mexican American until I recalled stories of the Red Sox's Ted Williams, who was raised in San Diego, CA by his Mexican American mother who had been abandoned by her Anglo husband. Ted Williams loved his mother. But he expressed the view that those times were a bit dicey for Mexican Americans, as a result of which he did not identify that openly in Irish Boston as being Mexican American. In addition to being a great ballplayer, Williams was a military hero serving not only during WW II early on but volunteering during the Korean conflict, serving as a fighter pilot.

Wikipedia has an extensive, detailed post on the Trump University legal proceedings, including the Class Action pending in CA. Take a look at the chronology. Class Action status was granted in 2014 by the trial judge assigned to the case. Trump did not announce for the presidency until June of 2015, at which time he gave his rant on Mexicans. Surely Trump was aware at the time of the ethnicity of the trial judge. Was the rant a coincidence or a litigation strategy devised by Trump on his own or perhaps in consultation with his attorneys? I am not aware of public statements made by Trump about the ethnicity of the trial judge before Trump's rant against Mexicans in his June 2015 announcement. Does anyone need a reminder of the value that Trump places upon his brand? One need not be a cynic, based upon Trump's history, to suspect Trump's candidacy was aimed at protecting and/or further nurturing his brand. There was Trump water; There was Trump vodka. There was Trump steak. And looming over all this was Trump University. No wonder Trump won't release his tax returns as he otherwise might be revealed as as having emptying financial cupboards. (Unlike the Wizard of Oz, Trump did not hide his persona behind a curtain, relying upon ugly comments to disguise that there is no Trump there.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], to expand on "disqualifications" of officials because of ethnicity or religion, consider the pre-Scalia demise Roberts Court with 6 Catholic Justices ruling on cases involving Catholic institutions in connection with Obamacare.

Brett really isn't that stupid but he is definitely undereducated, blinded by his bigotry, in his defenses of Donald J. Trump.

And further by the Bybee [again, expletives deleted], Speaker Paul Ryan has demonstrated dumb timing in his endorsement of Donald Trump as the GOP presidential candidate. It was probably an Ayn Rand moment, one that politically he will be unable to shrug off.
 

Shag, I have to assume that your definition of "undereducated" revolves around not agreeing with you, rather than the actual amount of education one has. Because I'm pretty sure you've never seen my college transcript, and engineers aren't typically "undereducated", unless 99.5% of the human race qualifies.
 

The first person who used the word here is a Republican law professor (and he's not alone) that is not a member of "the left," it had content to back it up and your loose usage of words makes you a poor prophet for word correctness. So, I'm with Mark Field.

Anyway, I noted in a past thread "racism" in general usage is used broadly and a quick search of "Mexican" and "racism" underlines the point. But, if Trump is "not trivially wrong" for prejudice of another kind, okay. But, again, the professor -- not "the left" -- is to blame in this case since he is the one who set the terms.

And, though you can't just say it w/o taking potshots at "the left" (is it a tic?), it's a small victory you said he was "wrong." OTOH, the better answer was "not trivially wrong."

What people who "riot at Trump rallies" has to do with this specific judge is unclear to me, other than more scattershot stereotyping and changing the subject. Telling.
 

"I'm not going to blame the victims."

The victim here is the judge. You are blaming him, from what I can tell.
 

Brett has demonstrated that he is undereducated by his long use of blog comments as social media to discuss his personal issues. Imagine an engineer spending so much time at this and other blogs delving not into engineering but his personal issues, biases, with obviously little training in the law. Perhaps Brett is a self employed engineer with all this time on his hands to expound with his crapola more in the role of a troll. (Or if he is employed, perhaps he has a tolerant employer permitting him to go off with his frolic and banter. A degree doesn't mean one is well educated. It is Brett's commentary that demonstrates his being under educated.
 

i am going to come out of the non-comment mode i have been in for the past several years. sometimes, it is necessary, such as now when the proliferation of apologists who will not see things for what they are, or who willfully turn their backs to it thereby rendering an appalling situation worse.

it took me less than two minutes to find this after reading brett's original comment on this post:

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/06/03/dishonest-attempt-associate-gonzalo-curiel-la-raza/

i will not call anyone racist. i will not call anyone uneducated or stupid. i simply wonder why anyone who cares about this country cannot take a minute to verify what can charitably be called a reckless and inflammatory statement before repeating it.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

A good link. Note its usage of "racism." At a "conservative" blog.

Shag might find this discussion of Lochner interesting:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/06/dueling-perspectives-on-lochner-v-united-states/
 

香港邮政公司股份 in thiep chuc mung nam moi
in catalogue 希望为印刷和广告成为最专业的设计服务。运营效率的基础上 in giấy khen
in bao li xi 有关各方之间的利益协调可持续发展 始终把客户作为一切工作的中心，主题最重要的服务 mau phong bi dep
báo giá in kẹp file 工作质量，进度令人满意的客户优先级为 价值关系长远来看 mau phong bi dep
báo giá in kẹp file 新的发展伙伴，开发了基于尊重当事人 In thẻ VIP giá rẻ
mau ky yeu dep 其口号是“持久的凝聚力 - 联合开发” in kỷ yếu giá rẻ
in phong bì giá rẻ
mẫu thẻ nhân viên đẹp


 

A search of the SDLRLA Web site got me a single link to the NCLR Web site. The link is in this post at SDLRLA: "On June 9, 2012 the National Council of La Raza, the country’s largest Latino civil rights organization, voted unanimously to pass a resolution which endorsed marriage equality for same-sex couples."

I couldn't find any "ethnic supremacy" on the NCLR Web site. They appear to be an activist organization addressing such issues as immigration reform, the upcoming payday loan rules, the ACA, which affect Latin-Americans. It is legitimate for a historically oppressed minority to organize and rally their people. It is not "ethnic supremacy."
 

Why is everyone here simply ignoring the fact that part of La Raza's mission is to promote the interests of the Latino community, not just the professional interests of Latino lawyers? The argument is that the aforementioned purpose is a conflict of interest. I suppose that argument is assailable, but I find it curious it's being ignored rather than assailed. It's disingenuous to claim Team Trump is arguing the judge should be recused only because of his heritage. Trump doesn't make his argument thoroughly or impressively every time he opens his mouth, but that's no excuse for everyone else to disregard what's relevant.
 

On the probably erroneous assumption that you've asked your questions in good faith, Jeff, you need to understand that even if you were correct, that would not meet the legal standard for disqualification. Membership in the ACLU or the Federalist Society does not disqualify one from ruling on civil rights cases. Membership in the NRA does not disqualify one from ruling on gun rights cases. Membership in the Association of Women Lawyers (I made this one up) would not disqualify one from ruling on gender issues. Etc.

But the problem goes far beyond that. Assume there was a conflict here. Trump is the one who created it. No litigant can be allowed to create a conflict of interest by making disparaging comments that affect a judge. That would lead to complete abuse of the legal system as litigants jockeyed for favorable rulings.

There's no serious argument in Trump's favor.
 

Thanks for responding, Mark. My question was indeed asked in good faith. Why do you suspect otherwise? Here's another fair and pertinent question: Why do you think, as I comb the internet seeking information about Trump's conflict of interest argument, that I see tons of people claiming La Raza's mission is only to support the professional interests of Latino lawyers even though the San Diego and national websites both plainly say the mission is also to advance the interests of the Latino community? It's obvious that nurturing lawyers' careers isn't a conflict of interest, whereas it's not at all obvious (to laymen anyway) that advocating positions that impact the Latino community is not a conflict of interest. So the latter point, not the former, is what needs to be addressed. That only the blatantly nonconflicting part of La Raza's mission is being highlighted makes me doubt the sincerity of those who are dismissing Trump's beef. I have no dog in the fight, just trying to understand why the more salient and arguable consideration is being so universally ignored.
 

Thank you for sharing the information here. It will be useful for many peoples rather than Mexican.

SEO Comapany in Chennai
 

Brett has been on the idea that "racism" is being used here, partially per his "the left/Democrats use the term to mean 'people I don't like."

As noted, "racism" has been applied in this context by a range of people, including Red State, a conservative blog. They are not doing so merely because they don't like Trump, but for a specific reason that has merit.

But found something that gets to why the word is used in this context.

HEILEMANN: I am fully aware that Mexico is not a race, but you can invoke things like that to stir up racial animus regardless of whether or not Mexico is a race or not.

https://mediamatters.org/video/2016/06/03/bloombergs-halperin-says-trumps-racist-attack-judge-isnt-racial-because-mexican-isnt-race/210723

"Racism" is used here in part because the problem here does have something to do with "race," including specifically why Mexicans (as compared to some other ethnicity or nationality that might in some fashion cause difficulties) is problematic. The color of skin and other social definitions of "race" is involved here.

Anyway, again, I honestly used it here because GM himself did. But, a more comprehensive critique, such as by Professor Eugene Volokh, is fine. It is just that saying "this isn't racism" is (1) often not said in total good faith (2) at the end of the day a "trivial" point given everything involved (3) not even fully true.
 

Prior to Trump's announcement of his presidential candidacy in June of 2015, had Trump made such rants against Mexicans? The Trump U. class action was certified as such in 2014. The ethnicity of the trial judge was fixed at that time. What , if any, "prescient" public comments did Trump make about Mexicans in the nature of his June 2015 candidacy rant when that suit was brought against Trump U. in 2014 or later in 2014 when it was granted class action status? In June of 2015 with his candidacy, did Trump provide his Mexican rant as a trial strategy to thwart the class action? If so, were Trump U.'s attorneys complicit? Can anyone establish with credible evidence that the trial judge in the 2014 timeframe of the law suit and its designation as a class action had any idea that Trump would announce his candidacy in June of 2015 with a rant against Mexicans, including Trump's plan to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it?
 

Moved from the bottom of the other thread since it's the same discussion here:

Bart said: "The term La Raza is not simply a term of "racial pride." By its own language, "the Race" is a term placing one race above others. If a white supremacist group was entitling itself as "the Race," we all know what they meant and you would not be offering this spin in their defense.

Furthermore, the NAACP is not advocating placing their race in control over other races like the KKK, Nazis and La Raza do. Piss poor analogy."

By *its own language* the NAACP is an organization for the National Association for the *Advancement of Colored People* and, yeah, is at that level no different from an organization that 'by it's own language is 'the Race.'

So you're going to have to go beyond the titles if you want to say the latter is radically different than the former.
 

"That only the blatantly nonconflicting part of La Raza's mission is being highlighted makes me doubt the sincerity of those who are dismissing Trump's beef."

Jeff, I think it's mainly highlighted because that's how the organization highlights what it does. If you look here you'll see that it talks far more about the legal profession than the Latino community in general (while it does mention it).

http://sdlrla.com/about/mission-statement/

 

"It's disingenuous to claim Team Trump is arguing the judge should be recused only because of his heritage."

What I find disingenuous is this: in his speech that sparked this controversy Trump did not, to my knowledge, point out Curiel's membership in any organization as a problem. He said he was 'a Mexican.' Trump's supporters have *after the fact* brought up his membership in a post hoc effort to rehab the statement.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I heard someone flag the matter Shag referenced -- Trump argued a non-biased judge would have dismissed his case long ago, but his campaign regarding "the wall" was more recent than the case itself. This also goes to those who see some sort of anti-Trump as President conspiracy afoot. The case is older than that & even in mid-2015, people didn't take the whole campaign too seriously. Shame on us.

Mr. W. as usual also makes some good points but the whole thing appears confused. The reference to the group (I quoted its mission statement) was made to show that those who were trying to tar him as a member of a controversial group were wrong. The Red State link explains this quite well (again, not a liberal website).

It seems pretty obvious to me a Latino lawyer group would be concern about both Latinos and lawyers. A women lawyers' association would be for women and lawyers etc. Also, I see by Jeff's link that he and his "report" has been on the Trump beat for a while. Good luck. Finally, the suggestion the problem is Trump doesn't each time phrase his words carefully & people put him to a too high standard is ... hard to take too seriously.

But, unlike overly suspicious types like Mark Field, will let that go. Seriously, Mark Field does cover the rules of bias. See also my reference to Catholics hearing pro-choice litigants or vets hearing cases of anti-war types.
 

My question was indeed asked in good faith. Why do you suspect otherwise?

Because it read like a common form of troll post. But I'll take you at your word and I apologize for suggesting otherwise.

It's obvious that nurturing lawyers' careers isn't a conflict of interest, whereas it's not at all obvious (to laymen anyway) that advocating positions that impact the Latino community is not a conflict of interest.

When the legal system uses the term "bias" to determine if a judge has a conflict of interest, it does not mean "favors policies (or politics) different from those of the litigant". That would be too broad a standard. All judges have political views, and they're allowed to advocate for them within reasonable limits. Former Justice Scalia was an obvious example of this, but many judges belong to quasi-political organizations: a political party; a women's rights organization; a civil rights organization; a gun rights organization; etc. None of that constitutes "bias" or "conflict of interest" as far as the legal profession is concerned, because application of that standard would end up disqualifying almost everybody.

Instead, "bias" is a more targeted term. It means something more like "animus against a specific person". If, for example, a judge made derogatory comments about a litigant, or had some history of personal conflict with a litigant, that would be "bias". The same would be true of favorable relations -- being a litigant's spouse, for example.

Thus, the fact that the judge is a member of some society is not a "salient fact" at all. Plus, you're ignoring the problem I raised in my initial response, namely that Trump is the one who created the "conflict of interest". As I said, no litigant can be allowed to do that.


 

The term La Raza or "the Race" refers to the mestizo people of Aztlan - a greater Mexico including the Southwest United States. La Raza is analogous the Nazi's aryan race and Aztlan to Hitlers' greater Germany.

A series of radical Mexican American groups including Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Azlan ("Chicano Student Movement of Azlan"), the Brown Berets de Aztlan, Organization for the Liberation of Aztlan, La Raza Unida Party, the Nation of Aztlan and various other spin off groups located in U.S. universities and high schools around the Southwest advocate the racial superiority of La Raza and call for the reconquista or reconquest of the territories the United States conquered during the Mexican American War. A common saying among these groups is "Por la raza todo, fuera de la raza nada" — "For the race, everything, outside the race, nothing."

The La Raza movement is very real. Mexican American leaders like Caesar Chavez have spoken out against it in the past:

"I hear about la raza more and more," Chavez told biographer Peter Matthiessen. "Some people don't look at it as racism, but when you say 'la raza,' you are saying an anti-gringo thing, and our fear is that it won't stop there. Today it's anti-gringo, tomorrow it will be anti-Negro, and the day after it will be anti-Filipino, anti-Puerto Rican. And then it will be anti-poor-Mexican, and anti-darker-skinned Mexican."

http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html

http://cis.org/kammer/whats-name-meaning-la-raza

When allegedly mainstream Mexican American organizations and their members intentionally take the name La Raza, they are sending a very specific message, even if they do not include that message in their official mission statements.

Imagine if an exclusively German American group of attorneys called themselves the Aryan Lawyers of California, but their mission statement merely said that they promote the interests of the German American community and the professional interests of German American lawyers. Is their message any less clear? Would any President and Congress place a member of the Aryan Lawyers of California on the federal bench?

Words have meanings.


 

SPAM I AM! is obviously preparing to go the way of Speaker Paul Ryan with an endorsement of Trump with his latest rant distorting the role of membership by a trial judge in a certain organization that SPAM I AM! intentionally distorts. Going back to 2014 when the Trump U. suit was filed and its designation later that year by the trial judge as a class action, did Trump or his attorneys raise the issue of the trial judge's recusal formally in advance of Trump's June 2015 candidacy announcement with its rant against Mexicans? Has a formal recusal been filed by Trump's attorneys since the trial judge's recent order releasing certain documents? The efforts being employed by Trump against the trial judge recall the tactics of Trump's late legal counsel Roy Cohn (who had earlier been counsel to Sen. Joe McCarthy). (Regarding the documents released by the trial judge, it should be kept in mind that many of such documents had earlier been made public by a media organization.)

Query: Does SPAM I AM! in defending Ganja DUI clients challenge magistrates/judges who may be Mexican-American and members of some La Raza connected organization?

Yes, words have meanings, but distortions of words are an intentional effort to deceive, here by SPAM I AM! for what he perceives as potential political advantage. When SPAM I AM! takes a crack at legal ethics, he creates a chasm from reality.
 

Shag: Going back to 2014 when the Trump U. suit was filed and its designation later that year by the trial judge as a class action, did Trump or his attorneys raise the issue of the trial judge's recusal formally in advance of Trump's June 2015 candidacy announcement with its rant against Mexicans?

I am unsure whether the long time progressive and Democrat-funder Trump had even settled on his fascist campaign strategy at that time. However, do not be surprised if Trump again uses Judge Curiel as a political prop and has his lawyers move for recusal during the campaign.

Query: Does SPAM I AM! in defending Ganja DUI clients challenge magistrates/judges who may be Mexican-American and members of some La Raza connected organization?

Does the La Raza movement have a position on decriminalizing marijuana or Colorado's scientifically baseless legal limits on blood THC for driving?


 

Does the La Raza movement have a position on decriminalizing marijuana or Colorado's scientifically baseless legal limits on blood THC for driving?


# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 12:21 PM

It's probably similar to their position on scumbags setting up phony universities to scam poor people.

 

Thanks, Mark. Aside from Trump "creating the problem" (articulating his immigration policy after the onset of litigation), might there be a conflict of interest if, hypothetically, it were known that La Raza explicitly advocates against Trump's policy?
 

SPAM I AM!'s:

"I am unsure whether the long time progressive and Democrat-funder Trump had even settled on his fascist campaign strategy at that time. However, do not be surprised if Trump again uses Judge Curiel as a political prop and has his lawyers move for recusal during the campaign."

in the first sentence ignores Trump's role in long questioning the bona fides of Obama's citizenship birth going back to the beginning of Obama's first term and continuing through Obama's second term. Was Trump during those 8 years a "progressive and Democrat-funder"? SPAM I AM! seems to concede that he has no credible evidence concerning Trump's views on Mexicans before Trump's candidacy in June of 2015. And I would not be surprised by what Trump might do politically regarding the trial judge or what steps Trumps attorneys in the class action might take; but the attorneys will have to be careful professionally not to jeopardize their tickets. Trump may rely upon the 1st A speech and press clauses, but if he goes too far he might faces charges of contempt. So once again SPAM I AM! is opining without providing any substance.

As to CO's ganja recreational laws, it seems clear that Mexican drug dealers have been impacted financially quite negatively. The La Raza connection that SPAM I AM! tries to make in his earlier comment would, in his baseless evaluation, extend to CO magistrates/judges who are Mexican-American and members of a L a Raza connected organization. So SPAM I AM! is spinning a tail that he attempts to wag for some perceived political advantage, presumably to ... [drum roll] ... Donald Trump. SPAM I AM! may be boning up on Ayn Rank to join Speaker Ryan in endorsing Trump for President.
 

No, and for 2 reasons. First because, as I mentioned above, general political views don't constitute "bias". For example, Justice Scalia could be politically opposed to abortion, but that didn't mean he was disqualified from hearing abortion cases. On the other side, the fact that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was head of the ACLU does not disqualify her from hearing free speech cases.

The more important reason, though, is that Trump's political policy of building a wall is totally irrelevant to the issues raised by the lawsuit. That's basically a fraud case, in which the issues are things like (1) were representations made to people? (2) were those representations false? (3) did the hearers reasonably rely on those false representations? (4) did they suffer damages as a direct and proximate result of those false representations? Etc. None of that has anything to do with a wall on the border, and the judge can rule on the legal issues without any consideration of the politics.
 

Thanks for edifying me. ↑
 

I read Bart's 10:44 comment. What jumped out at me at first was this comment:

"The term La Raza or "the Race" refers to the mestizo people of Aztlan - a greater Mexico including the Southwest United States. La Raza is analogous the Nazi's aryan race and Aztlan to Hitlers' greater Germany."

It jumped out to me because I remember hearing the other day about how Christopher Columbus Day used to be celebrated in Spain as Dia de la Raza (it was changed to Dia de la Hispanidad). So right away Bart's tediously predictable bold statement seemed to have a problem: it would be exceedingly strange for 'la Raza' to only refer to 'the mestizo people of Aztlan' if it was used in Spain proper...

So it didn't take long to google la Raza and find that it comes from the work of José Vasconcelos, a Mexican philosopher/intellectual, namely his work La Raza Cosmica. The work appears to be about how intermarriage will soon lead to a 'fifth race' which is an agglomeration of the other races, and that such a race is heralded by the people of the former Spanish/Portugese Americas because those people are already so racially mixed. This was offered as a counter to traditional Darwinist ideologies popularly used at the time to justify racial oppression and inferiority of these people, to inspire them to improvement.


 

I went to one of Bart's link, the CIS one. I found it, and what Bart took from it, to be a perfect example of sloppy partisan investigation and thought.

Take a look at what the page offers as 'evidence.' First, an excerpt of an interview from an official of National Council of La Raza. When asked what the term 'la raza' means the official answers quite plainly: "It has many interpretations, as many words do here. But our interpretation of it is as of community and representing the people."

The official is asked "When does it mean race?" and she responds "it can mean race if someone wants to attribute it in another context as race. But as we embrace that term to represent the organization and it's work and really our history in this country, it has been to represent a voice for the Hispanic Americans"

What is that supposed to prove? It certainly doesn't provide much support for Bart's statements though, does it? She says plainly that the word has several meanings, that one in 'another context' is race, but that she and the organization doesn't think of it in that way, but rather as the Latino community (remember, even if it did literally mean 'race' it would most likely refer to Vasconcelos' concept including black, white, and Indian Latinos-the 'cosmic race').

The web site then points out that Spanish dictionaries translate 'raza' to mean "race, breed, strain, stock." Well, we all know words *only* have their dictionary meaning in all contexts, right?!?

What's left is pointing to it's origin, but without much context, in Vasconcelos' work, and that it was 'embraced' by 'Chicano nationalism' movements in the 60s (could that be anything like 'Black Power' in the same period?), two quotes by prominent Hispanics who didn't like the terms connotations, and then some comment that the term has "has caused strains even within the organization" what with "some Mexican-Americans say they have adopted the term "la raza" without embracing its militant connotations, others have been uncomfortable with an organization whose very name emphasizes racial identity."

The article actually ends by acknowledging the "the multi-layered complexity" of the terms meaning, but of course still suggests it's somewhat nefarious.

And it's from this that we get Bart's bold statement equating the organization and it's name to Nazism. Lazy, lazy bias.

At this time, while I'm no expert, I really can't distinguish the Council of La Raza from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (if anything, the latter more clearly is what the article refers to as "organization whose very name emphasizes racial identity") or ethnic organizations like the (Irish American) Ancient Order of Hibernians, the Order of the Sons of Italy in America (Italian American), the German American National Congress, and countless other ethnic/racial support/pride/heritage organizations. Perhaps more digging will reveal something different, perhaps not. But thank God I don't have the lazy partisan jump to conclusion mentality of some...
 

Again, it shouldn't be forgotten that Trump himself did not originally complain judge Curiel's membership in an organization, he complained that he was 'a Mexican.' All this stuff about the La Raza membership came out after the fact.
 

Mista Whiskas, you might or might not be correct about what was said first. Trump and at least one of his spokespersons have commented multiple times. What difference does the chronology make? If there were a conflict of interest, would it cease to exist based on Trump's campaign rhetoric?
 

If a black candidate for office was in the middle of a lawsuit and he said that he couldn't get a fair shake from the judge, 'a white,' and nothing more, then if, later, his supporters said 'well, the judge is a member of the Sons of the Confederate Veterans, that's what's egregious' it wouldn't take away the stain of the candidate's comment, would it? If the candidate had said 'a member of the SCV' then there'd be another discussion, and if Trump said 'a member of NCLR' ditto. But the fact that the qualifier he thought worth mentioning was that the judge was 'a Mexican' says something awful.
 

Mista Whiskas, although I don't know every word spoken by Team Trump, or the precise chronology, I understand your logic, and don't dispute it. Still unanswered: If there were a conflict of interest, would it cease to exist based on Trump's campaign rhetoric?
 

At some point, that level of effort seems more encouragement than anything else.

Remember people. Words have meanings!
 

Jeff's: "What difference does the chronology make? " suggest naivete but more likely lack of good faith, especially when in a later comment he concedes: " ... I don't know every word spoken by Team Trump, or the precise chronology, ... " Apparently Jeff wishes to extend his pedantic game of what ifs rather than research the points he attempts to raise.
 

Shag, I suppose my question strikes you as naïve, because you’re unable or unwilling to grasp that I’m focused on what could conceivably constitute a conflict of interest rather than on the quality of Trump’s rhetoric. You indicate the same inability/unwillingness when you suggest I should research the chronology. Given that I’m making no argument about it, why would I research it?

One reason for my “what ifs” is that I’d like to know if La Raza might now be somewhat hamstrung by the fact that Trump has raised the conflict of interest issue. In other words, to avoid creating a problem for the judge, does La Raza now have to be circumspect about its immigration advocacy, or could it scream as loudly as it wants that the wall and deporting 11 million people is a terrible idea?
 

BD: "The term La Raza or "the Race" refers to the mestizo people of Aztlan - a greater Mexico including the Southwest United States. La Raza is analogous the Nazi's aryan race and Aztlan to Hitlers' greater Germany."

Mr. W: It jumped out to me because I remember hearing the other day about how Christopher Columbus Day used to be celebrated in Spain as Dia de la Raza (it was changed to Dia de la Hispanidad). So right away Bart's tediously predictable bold statement seemed to have a problem: it would be exceedingly strange for 'la Raza' to only refer to 'the mestizo people of Aztlan' if it was used in Spain proper...

We are discussing how Mexican and Mexican American nationalists are using the term, not how Spain celebrated an Italian explorer at one time.

Mr. W: So it didn't take long to google la Raza and find that it comes from the work of José Vasconcelos, a Mexican philosopher/intellectual, namely his work La Raza Cosmica. The work appears to be about how intermarriage will soon lead to a 'fifth race' which is an agglomeration of the other races, and that such a race is heralded by the people of the former Spanish/Portugese Americas because those people are already so racially mixed. This was offered as a counter to traditional Darwinist ideologies popularly used at the time to justify racial oppression and inferiority of these people, to inspire them to improvement.

Nice summary of the white washed Wikipedia entry. In reality, Vasconcelos was a racial supremacist, a fascist and a father of the La Raza movement:

Jose Vasconcelos (1882-1959) was among the most important and influential Mexican intellectuals of the twentieth century. His childhood was spent partly on the U.S./Mexican border, where he attended schools in Eagle Pass, Texas. During his formative years, Vasconcelos developed a profound suspicion of Americans, whom he viewed as crassly pragmatic, arrogant, shallow, aggressive, and lacking in spirituality. Undoubtedly, he was also offended by the fact that many Americans continued to endorse ideas like those espoused earlier in the century by their compatriot Joel Poinsett. Like certain other Latin Americans of the turn of the century—such as the Uruguayan philosopher Jose Enrique Rodo, the Nicaraguan poet Ruben Dario, and the Cuban patriot Jose Marti—Vasconcelos's thought developed in pan as a reaction against North America and its materialistic values. He felt that Latin Americans must avoid imitating American culture, and that in order to do that successfully they would, need a. guiding philosophy, one that celebrated their strengths and virtues. In this spirit, he argued that the Latin American mestizo constituted a new race, a "cosmic race," which combined the virtues of Indians and Europeans. This, Vasconcelos believed, would be the race of the future.

While Vasconcelos's theory turned the white supremacist racism of the day on its head, it remains at heart a racist theory. By imputing inevitable characteristics to the various races of the earth, Vasconcelos engages in rather reckless stereotyping. His romantic notion of the spiritual essence of his people and of the soullessness of Anglo- Saxon culture, together with his increasing bitterness at the course of events in Mexico, would lead him to embrace fascism and anti-Semitism during World War II.

https://www.epcc.edu/faculty/rferrell/Documents/The_Cosmic_Race.pdf


 

Mr. W: Take a look at what the [CIS] page offers as 'evidence.' First, an excerpt of an interview from an official of National Council of La Raza. When asked what the term 'la raza' means the official answers quite plainly: "It has many interpretations, as many words do here. But our interpretation of it is as of community and representing the people."

The official is asked "When does it mean race?" and she responds "it can mean race if someone wants to attribute it in another context as race. But as we embrace that term to represent the organization and it's work and really our history in this country, it has been to represent a voice for the Hispanic Americans"

The reporter was having none of the spin you and the la Raza spokeswoman are offering. La Raza means "the Race" as your citation to the Vasconcelos essay clearly illustrates.

I can easily apply your word games to reform the Nazis. National Socialists are simply peace loving socialists who love their country. Aryan means noble, respectable and honorable. Who are you to tell National Socialists they are not noble, respectable and honorable, you racist bigot?
 

Jeff, I think you are beyond naive. The Trump U. class action involves private parties in the judicial process. You appear oblivious to doing your own legal research, playing a raher juvenile game. It is a matter for the parties to the class action to address whether there might be some conflict of interest that might result in recusal of the trial judge. There are legal procedures for addressing such. You could check the docket of the class action to determine pleasdings, etc, filed by the parties going back to when the case was first file and then determined by the to have class action status. There were certain appeals taken to an appellate court in the federal sustem. If you are in search of legal advice on the matters you point to, perhaps others at this blog may accommodate you, but not I as I don't think you are credibly interested. You could go to a law library or access certain legal search sites. There are procedures that the parties can follow. The respective attorneys for the parties to the class action have certain ethical obligations as officers of the court, including timely filings on behalf of their clients, including raising conflict of interest and other ethical issues. I do grasp that you are seeking information. But you do not seem prepared to conduct research on your own. That gives you the opportunity to second guess a commenter who does try to assist you. But you are playing a game, a juvenile game. You state you do not want to make an argument but then you argue when a comment of yours is addressed. I could care less whether you actually spend research time. You claim to want to know certain things from others. But you have not demonstrated that you are sincere. The class action as earlier noted is between private parties. It is in recent weeks that statements by Trump have attracted wide attention. You are not prepared to contribute productively. Rather you are like the yound child constantly asking "Why?" when information is provided. Why would anyone want to contribute to your knowledge under the circumstances? And how might convincing you be productive?
 

Shag, for a guy who thinks I deserve to be ignored, you sure do pontificate extensively. I can easily live with an anonymous drama queen doubting my sincerity, and insisting I do research. Not my fault that you imagine my respectful questions are disrespectful, or that you confuse opinions with legal advice. Good luck imposing your rules!

 

Bart,
I'd bet dollars to donuts that you have not read Vasconcelos' work or any serious work around him. I can make that bet rather confidently because when you answered me you didn't draw upon any of that, but rather a few paragraph introduction of one of his works from a community college. In short, you don't know what you're talking about but yet are confidently striding in as if you did. We know how that usually ends up around here...

Your evidence has been exceedingly weak. First you claim that on its face it's a racist organization because of it's name, La Raza, which translates to 'the race' and then you completely undermine that argument by comparing it to the NAACP which on it's face is also an "organization whose very name emphasizes racial identity." Then you point to Vasconcelos' use of the term in his work, which you're clearly unfamiliar with. Then you point to an interview where the La Raza official says directly and more than once that the name "can mean race if someone wants to attribute it in another context as race. *But as we embrace that term to represent the organization and it's work and really our history in this country, it has been to represent a voice for the Hispanic Americans*."

Your equation to the Nazis really demonstrates a simplistic obtuseness, the kind that equates the KKK shouting 'white power' at a cross burning with black students yelling 'black power' at a protest. It's not uncommon for groups with a history of oppression and being told they're inferior to come up with ideas or ways to think of themselves as actually special, to embrace their much maligned selves and actually find strength where their oppressors see weakness. This can be seen with the Irish, with the American Southerner, Jews, Blacks and, perhaps here (I say 'perhaps' because I make no pretense of knowing what Vasconcelos' work and subsequent movements were all about in their use of the term). It's facile to equate these with what Nazism represented, like equating 'Jocks Rule' with 'Nerds Rule' based on their literal, surface meanings.
 

Jeff, a direct question for you: you say "I understand your logic, and don't dispute it." Does this mean you agree that in the particular speech which brought this issue to the forefront, Trump questioning the judge's fairness because 'he's a Mexican' was an awful thing to do?
 

Mista Whiskas: "Jeff, a direct question for you: you say 'I understand your logic, and don't dispute it.' Does this mean you agree that in the particular speech which brought this issue to the forefront, Trump questioning the judge's fairness because 'he's a Mexican' was an awful thing to do?”

I didn’t mean at that point in the thread to critique Trump or his rhetoric so much as I meant to say I think you’re right that the chronology is relevant if one wishes to speculate as to when the Golden Wrecking Ball came up with his reasoning.

In the Jake Tapper interview on CNN, Trump sounded bigoted and absurd, because he focused on the judge’s heritage rather than on any factors that arguably indicate a conflict of interest. Not sure if it was by mistake or by design. Sometimes Trump plays rope a dope with his critics. By that I mean he intentionally says something ridiculous to make himself seem vulnerable to criticism for the purpose of creating a firestorm and inducing attacks, and later slays his opponents with a much stronger argument than he at first seemed to have in his arsenal. His tribute to Muhammad Ali!

Have you noticed that, in general, Trump is a brilliant strategist?

 

Alberto Gonzales thinks Trump’s concern is valid, because judges are obligated to avoid the appearance of impropriety according to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/04/alberto-r-gonzales-trump-has-a-right-to-question-whether-hes-getting-a-fair-trial/

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges
 

Mr. W: I'd bet dollars to donuts that you have not read Vasconcelos' work or any serious work around him.

You are correct. I am not much into the rantings of racist fascists. You brought Vasconcelos into this discussion.

I can make that bet rather confidently because when you answered me you didn't draw upon any of that, but rather a few paragraph introduction of one of his works from a community college.

Your "research" started and ended with Vasconceloys' entry in Wikipedia and you cited an essay you did not provide.

The .pdf to which I linked offered excerpts of your cited essay. Here is a link to a more extensive set of excerpts:

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/o/obriene/art111/readings/vasconcelos%20cosmic%20race.pdf

The man's full rant runs 160 pages and does not appear available in full on the web.

Your equation to the Nazis really demonstrates a simplistic obtuseness, the kind that equates the KKK shouting 'white power' at a cross burning with black students yelling 'black power' at a protest.

This is a red herring. My analogy with the Nazis comes from reading the linked manifestos of the groups I cited.

Your citation to your fascist Vasconcelos' essay is actually further proof. Read the excerpts.

Do you realize that this man edited the Nazi front propaganda magazine Timon?

https://www.scribd.com/doc/133346507/Jose-Vasconcelos-the-Nazi-propagandist-behind-La-Raza-Mexican-nationalism

FWIW, there is no difference between the two shouts. They are both equally saying power to my race.

It's not uncommon for groups with a history of oppression and being told they're inferior to come up with ideas or ways to think of themselves as actually special, to embrace their much maligned selves and actually find strength where their oppressors see weakness.

Fascism specializes in using racial superiority and unity arguments to make the downtrodden feel strong.

First you claim that on its face it's a racist organization because of it's name, La Raza, which translates to 'the race' and then you completely undermine that argument by comparing it to the NAACP which on it's face is also an "organization whose very name emphasizes racial identity."

I have already addressed your poor analogy. Once again, can you spot the difference between "the race" and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? A fifth grader can get this without the benefit of having already been told the answer.
 

Does anyone notice the irony in SPAM I AM!'s commentary on fascist claims against a certain individual associated with a La Raza organization [there are several organizations using La Raza] serves as SPAM I AM!'s defense of Donald J. Trump, whom SPAM I AM! has described as a fascist? SPAM I AM!'s next step is to swallow the GOP leader Trump and endorse him.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], SPAM I AM! has been very much, up to now at least, into the fascist rantings of Trump during SPAM I AM!'s support of the failed Cruz Canadacy. SPAM I AM! will surely come around to support Trump in the manner of Speaker Ryan and even John McCain.
 

Jeff's link to the article by Alberto "Not-So-Speedy" Gonzales brought back a lot of memories of his role in the Bush/Cheney Administration well reflected in the extensive comments on the article. One would have to look hard through the comments to find a pony of support for Gonzales' views. Rather, Gonzales has reopened exposure to the extensive criticism of Gonzales' role in the Bush/Cheney Administration. Gonzales provides no credible evidence that should cause the trial judge to be recused. One of the comments notes that as yet Trump's attorneys in the class action have not filed a pleading challenging the trial judge on the matter of recusal. One reason might be that Trump may be required to be a witness at a hearing on such a pleading, under oath, of course. But that might not serve The Donald's political interests. But it also could be that the attorneys might be finding it difficult professionally to put together such a pleading that is credible.
 

"A fifth grader can get this"

I'd think the fifth grader would recognize that for the time 'colored people' was what members of the black race were called, so that the Association for the Advancement of Colored People is very much as much of an "organization whose very name emphasizes racial identity" as one named 'the race.' In fact, if anything, since 'the race' refers back to the idea of people of black, white, Indian and Asian ancestry mixed the former is *more* race specific.

"Your "research" started and ended with Vasconceloys' entry in Wikipedia and you cited an essay you did not provide."

I'd also think the fifth grader could get that while neither of us are experts, it's you that claims to know confidently what the term 'really' means (as opposed to how the representatives of La Raza repeatedly say what it means to them). That person is you. As I said above "I say 'perhaps' because I make no pretense of knowing what Vasconcelos' work and subsequent movements were all about in their use of the term," you do, and therefore your ignorance in the subject is a major fault.

"FWIW, there is no difference between the two shouts. They are both equally saying power to my race."

I'd think a fifth grader could recognize that one group is a historically oppressed one at the bottom socio-economic rungs of society the other the traditional oppressor at the high rungs, so in invoking power to their race they are calling for something quite different. One is calling for power to the powerless, the other keeping power to the powerful.

These things make one wonder, cue Jeff Foxworthy, is Bart as smart as a fifth grader?

 

Jeff, I wouldn't say Trump is brilliant, though he (or his strategists) have at times made some smart moves during the GOP nominating contest. I'd say it's more likely he's stumbled into a significant zeitgeist of a significant portion of the population being fed up with and/or disaffected from 'elites' and what they see as the accompanying mores of professionalism and expertise. Most major politicians have been willing to flirt with this sentiment but wary of embracing of it because it's not clear whether a majority of voters overall will reject it, but you have to give Trump that he's been bold enough (or again, lucky enough) to embrace it like no one before him.
 

What Trump has demonstrated is that his strategies have worked in his subduing of his 16 GOP opponents in the GOP Clown Limo debates, with his base of older undereducated white males. We'll see how his strategies work during the general election. Trump demolished the GOP cream of the crap as his base stuck with him. That GOP cream of the crap was unable to effectively challenge Trump's weaknesses, including Trump U., Trump water, Trump vodka, Trump steak, multiple bankruptcies, as the cream of the crap was reluctant to challenge Trump, as those who did were eventually bullied-out. Jeff's question :

"Have you noticed that, in general, Trump is a brilliant strategist?"

that Mr. W responded to does not seem to have been intended as rhetorical but more fawning of the persona of Trump, perhaps seeking a consulting gig for his firm.
 

Shag: Does anyone notice the irony in SPAM I AM!'s commentary on fascist claims against a certain individual associated with a La Raza organization [there are several organizations using La Raza] serves as SPAM I AM!'s defense of Donald J. Trump, whom SPAM I AM! has described as a fascist?

Did it occur to you that the La Raza movement and Trump are pitching directly competing versions of the same fascist message and are playing off one another?
 

BD: "A fifth grader can get this"

Mr. W: I'd think the fifth grader would recognize that for the time 'colored people' was what members of the black race were called, so that the Association for the Advancement of Colored People is very much as much of an "organization whose very name emphasizes racial identity" as one named 'the race.' In fact, if anything, since 'the race' refers back to the idea of people of black, white, Indian and Asian ancestry mixed the former is *more* race specific.

Once more for those readers who missed it the first time...

"THE Race" is an exclusive term which promotes one race above all others. Basic grammar even a fifth grader can get. You get the grammar, but are dishonestly ignoring it.

BD: "FWIW, there is no difference between the two shouts. They are both equally saying power to my race."

Mr. W: I'd think a fifth grader could recognize that one group is a historically oppressed one at the bottom socio-economic rungs of society the other the traditional oppressor at the high rungs, so in invoking power to their race they are calling for something quite different. One is calling for power to the powerless, the other keeping power to the powerful.

Racism is racism and fascism is fascism, no matter who is ladeling this bile. Stop excusing evil.
 

"Basic grammar even a fifth grader can get. "

You mean like how Association for the Advancement of (one specific named race) "promotes one race above all others?" You don't seem to be meeting the fifth graders standards here...

"Racism is racism"

Ipse dixit not responsive to my point.


 

The Trump campaign has a few charms including having people who leave a lot to be desired making sense (if you ask a serial killer the time, often you will get the right one and these people tend to be better; not sure about Dexter).

So, we have the likes of William Kristol, Max Boot/Eric Posner (two people who like executive power), John Yoo (!) and so on calling out Trump. But, he got AG on his side, perhaps interested in another job as an apologist of a questionable administration. His reputation is low enough that I'm unsure many Trump supporters even want to rely much on his op-ed, much criticized by reputable lawyers etc. As one practitioner noted on Twitter:

"Disgraceful. No lawyer should defend or normalize this sort of attack on a judge. Should be unanimously condemned."

Clinton won the VI caucus and is favored in the Puerto Rico primary today.
 

It depends what the definition of "is" is, Mr. W.
 

Mr. W: You mean like how Association for the Advancement of (one specific named race) "promotes one race above all others?"

You really do not see the difference between a term that places one race above all others and another which communicates a desire to help your race advance?

Whatever.

Ipse dixit

To quote a classic movie: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

https://youtu.be/dTRKCXC0JFg
 

Have you noticed that, in general, Trump is a brilliant strategist?

# posted by Blogger Jeff Norman : 9:10 PM

I'm not sure that conning stupid Republicans is an indication of brilliance.

 

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

No, I think it's you that doesn't understand the term.

"Ipse dixit is a term used to identify and describe a sort of arbitrary dogmatic statement, which the speaker expects the listener to accept as valid."

Your 'rebuttal' of my argument with 'racism is racism' fits it to a T.

"You really do not see the difference between a term that places one race above all others and another which communicates a desire to help your race advance?"

As per usual, you're reading 'places one race above all others' into that. One could as easily (and foolishly) read into the NAACP a mission to 'advance one race (colored people) over all others.' On it's face it just says 'The Race' just like ACP part says on its face 'Advancement of (the race of ) Colored People.' The Council of The Hispanic Race (or Council of Mestizo if you like) race, *if* that's what it means, strikes me as no different than the German American National Congress, the American Jewish Congress, etc. The Council for The Hispanic Race says no more than the others do, that they are organizations devoted to advancing the interest of the named racial or ethnic group. They're either all therefore racist or none of them (I've entered my argument to the latter, for which you've given nothing but ipse dixit replies).


 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I mean, I've often said that Bart is the perfect foil because he so thoroughly provides the very means to defeat his arguments in the very arguments themselves that it seems almost hard to believe. Here he brought up himself that the Council of La Raza is something totally not like the NAACP and linked to an article which argued that the title of the former is to be denounced because, I quote, it "promotes one race above all others?" If you look up 'promote' in a dictionary it says 'to help, *advance*'!!!!!, you know, as in 'ADVANCEMENT of COLORED (black) PEOPLE.

Yup, worlds apart! You literally couldn't make it up better if someone were posing as Bart to undercut him.
 

Mr. W quoting Wikipedia: "Ipse dixit is a term used to identify and describe a sort of arbitrary dogmatic statement, which the speaker expects the listener to accept as valid."

Your 'rebuttal' of my argument with 'racism is racism' fits it to a T.

I was correct. Ipse dixit does not mean what you think it means. One of the dangers of relying upon Wikipedia.

In reality, ipse dixit is a variation of the citation to authority logical fallacy. Oxford offers a better summary of this logical fallacy:

7. Ipse dixit (‘false authority’): L. "He said it himself"
Def- appealing to an illegitimate authority;
Ex- "Global warming must be true because the Vice President said so."

http://www.oxfordtutorials.com/logical_fallacies.htm

Sorry, but my observation that racism is racism no matter who employs it is hardly ipse dixit.

BD: "You really do not see the difference between a term that places one race above all others and another which communicates a desire to help your race advance?"

Mr. W: As per usual, you're reading 'places one race above all others' into that. One could as easily (and foolishly) read into the NAACP a mission to 'advance one race (colored people) over all others.'

Actually, declaring that your group's mission is to advance the position of colored people implies that you believe colored people need to catch with other other races, not that colored people are superior to other races.

The Council of The Hispanic Race (or Council of Mestizo if you like) race, *if* that's what it means, strikes me as no different than the German American National Congress, the American Jewish Congress, etc. The Council for The Hispanic Race says no more than the others do, that they are organizations devoted to advancing the interest of the named racial or ethnic group.

Straw man. That observation is correct, but is not addressing our issue.

The groups we are discussing are not calling themselves la raza hispano (the hispanic race) or la raza mestizo (the mixed race), but rather la raza (THE race). As I have noted in my links and you have noted by your suddenly forgotten citation to the writing of racist fascist Vasconcelos, the later term la raza (THE race) is used to advance a claim of racial superiority.

 

Bart,
You're demonstrably wrong about ipse dixit.

Merriam Webster defines it as: "an assertion made but not proved"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ipse%20dixit

The Oxford Dictionary defines it: "A dogmatic and unproven statement."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/ipse-dixit

The source you site is not to Oxford the college ("OTS is not officially associated with Oxford University (England)"; http://www.oxfordtutorials.com/), but rather a high school homeschooling tutorial service ("Oxford Tutorial Service (OTS) http://www.oxfordtutorials.com/ is an online college-prep High School program for home-school students"; http://www.oxfordtutorials.com/Oxford%20Tutorials%20Wikipedia.htm), you were likely misled by the name. It's mistaken, and one can see how it made it's mistake. Ipse dixit translates to 'he himself said it' and refers to, as the definitions I supply demonstrate, when someone makes a bare assertion with no argument and proof. It can be said that the only support for the assertion is the authority of the speaker (he himself has said it). That's not the same as a traditional argument from authority though. Your 'rebuttal' of 'racism is racism' is a quintessential example of a ipse dixit, it's a bare assertion with no support other than it's statement.


"declaring that your group's mission is to advance the position of colored people implies that you believe colored people need to catch with other other races"

Boy, you love to read some 'implies' into words (when it suits you though, at other times you insist on the most context-less and literal of understandings). But the mere title Advancement of Colored People does not in any way imply that. Advancement means "promotion or elevation," it can apply to someone or thing that is *any* relative position. One who is behind can advance to catch up, one that is ahead can advance to increase their lead. You're just inserting a meaning into the NAACP title because you think it will help you win your partisan inspired argument.

"The groups we are discussing are not calling themselves la raza hispano (the hispanic race) or la raza mestizo (the mixed race), but rather la raza (THE race)."

You're being silly, it was *you* that said 'the race' in 'la raza' refers to the mestizo race!

Bart DePalma said...
The term La Raza or "the Race" refers to the mestizo people

You're now arguing against...yourself! If, as Bart DePalma says, La Raza, or 'the Race,' refers to 'the mestizo people,' then the group is 'The Council of The Mestizo Race' and is therefore indistinguishable as groups like the Jewish Congress or the German American National Congress. It's a Council for the mestizo race, just as the German American National Congress is a congress for German Americans and the Jewish Congress is a Congress for the Jewish people, also equivalent to the NAACP which is just a National Association for the Advancement of the Black Race (Colored People).

"our suddenly forgotten citation to the writing of racist fascist Vasconcelos, the later term la raza (THE race) is used to advance a claim of racial superiority."

You have no idea what the term referred to in Vasconcelos' writing because you admittedly have not read them. But even the citations about his writings you've supplied say that he wrote not of La Raza but of La Raza Cosmica, which appears to be something closer to the antithesis of race (a 'race' that is a mixture of all extant races) and is a predicted future 'race' for which the mixed 'race' mestizos are a kind of forerunner (and only because of their supposed *disregard for racial boundaries*).

You're wrong all the way around here.

 

The most comical aspect of the comments section of this blog is Blankshot Bart pretending to be an authority on the meaning of words.
 

Mr. W: You're demonstrably wrong about ipse dixit.

Merriam Webster defines it as: "an assertion made but not proved"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ipse%20dixit

The Oxford Dictionary defines it: "A dogmatic and unproven statement."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/ipse-dixit

You are not going to wiggle out of this with citations to broad dictionary usages.

Neither of these dictionary entries are descriptions of the logical fallacy ipse dixit and both miss the citation to authority necessary for that logical fallacy.

Here is a description of the origins of the latin phrase:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/8/1043563/-

Here are more links to descriptions of the logical fallacy with usages:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html
http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/fallacy3211.htm
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal_to_Authority
http://www.constitution.org/col/logical_fallacies.htm

One of your less endearing qualities is your complete inability to admit that you are wrong. You are showing your ass here.

You get the last word on your weak analogy between la Raza and NAACP. I made my points.

BD: The groups we are discussing are not calling themselves la raza hispano (the hispanic race) or la raza mestizo (the mixed race), but rather la raza (THE race)."

Mr. W: You're being silly, it was *you* that said 'the race' in 'la raza' refers to the mestizo race!

I did not say anything. I cited the racists in the la Raza movement are the ones arguing that the mestizo "bronze race" is superior.

BD: "your suddenly forgotten citation to the writing of racist fascist Vasconcelos, the later term la raza (THE race) is used to advance a claim of racial superiority."

You have no idea what the term referred to in Vasconcelos' writing because you admittedly have not read them.

I had not read this racist fascist's writings before you cited to his essay ,which you did not read and which stated the opposite of the proposition for which you cited it. I provided you with links to passages from the essay after I read them. I am relatively certain that you still have not read these or anything else your Nazi sympathizer wrote.
 

"One of your less endearing qualities is your complete inability to admit that you are wrong. You are showing your ass here."

Oh, physician, heal thyself! Let's go point by point once again demonstrating your wrongness all the way around.

"You are not going to wiggle out of this with citations to broad dictionary usages."

Yes, one isn't going to prove what one meant by a term by pointing to broad dictionary terms! You're trying to dodge out of it by talking about a logical fallacy, but as you recognized at the first (at 11:50) we're talking about the term itself:

Bart: Ipse dixit

To quote a classic movie: "You keep using that word..."

I've established what the word means the way normal human beings do, by citing to numerous highly respected dictionaries. In a sad attempt to rebut you've cited a prep site for home schooled high schoolers and...a Daily Kos diarist blog??? It is to laugh.

BUT EVEN IN YOUR DODGE YOU DISPLAY YOUR WEAKNESS. Let's take the first cite you have for what you argue ipse dixit means: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

The citation starts by indicating it is going to list a grouping of logical fallacies all of which are versions of the appeal to authority, where the only 'argument' for something is a reference to who has said it. Here's how the source starts out:

Appeal to Misleading Authority
Alias:
Appeal to Authority
Argument from Authority
Argumentum ad Verecundiam
Translation: "Argument from respect/modesty" (Latin)
Ipse Dixit
Translation: "He, himself, said it" (Latin)

Notice it then doesn't mention ipse dixit again in the entire entry! So NONE of the examples and discussion are about that particular fallacy, but rather about the more traditional Appeal to and Argument from Authority. As I wrote upthread: "Ipse dixit translates to 'he himself said it' and refers to, as the definitions I supply demonstrate, when someone makes a bare assertion with no argument and proof. It can be said that the only support for the assertion is the authority of the speaker (he himself has said it). That's not the same as a traditional argument from authority though." A traditional appeal to authority, which is what you're talking about, is something like 'Global warming is true because Einstein said it is.' But an ipse dixit would be someone saying 'Of course global warming is true!' The appeal to authority is in that the only support for the bare assertion (which is what an ipse dixit is!) is that the speaker said it. The speaker is the misleading authority (and in your case, oh my it is indeed misleading!). Your bare assertion 'racism is racism' is classic ipse dixit.

Your third citation does the exact same thing. Your second citation is from a communications department! And your fourth citation says nothing about ipse dixit other than the translation which I noted originally.

So your own citations demonstrably don't prove your argument ONCE AGAIN! You've been schooled, fella. Don't worry though, I won't send a bill for tuition, as the pleasure was all mine.
 

"You get the last word on your weak analogy between la Raza and NAACP. I made my points."

And your points were easily refuted, you 'read into' the la Raza title something nefarious that wasn't evident, and 'read into' something more benign into the NAACP title something that isn't necessarily implied. I demonstrated that by once again citing to the dictionary definitions of the words involved. Your battle with dictionaries seems to mirror your battle with polls and other indicators of reality. A common symptom of the affliction of too much partisanship.

"BD: The groups we are discussing are not calling themselves la raza hispano (the hispanic race) or la raza mestizo (the mixed race), but rather la raza (THE race)."

Mr. W: You're being silly, it was *you* that said 'the race' in 'la raza' refers to the mestizo race!

I did not say anything."

No, you SAID EXACTLY THAT THING. Here I reproduce it:

Bart DePalma said...
The term La Raza or "the Race" refers to the mestizo people

Again, now you're arguing against your own self!

"I am relatively certain that you still have not read these or anything else your Nazi sympathizer wrote."

Neither of us have read his work or much about his work, but only one of us is, on the basis of that ignorance, charging a group with a nefarious meaning allegedly originating from such work. That's you.
 

Since this is a legal blog, it's interesting that one of the examples provided on the Merriam Webster's entry on ipse dixit is from a famous SCOTUS opinion. Not how the examples of ipse dixit the opinion gives are exactly like Bart's 'argument' "racism is racism."

"According to the city, it is “self-evident” that killing animals for food is “important”; the eradication of insects and pests is “obviously justified”; and the euthanasia of excess animals “makes sense.”… These ipse dixits do not explain why religion alone must bear the burden of these ordinances — Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)"

killing animals for food is “important”
the eradication of insects and pests is “obviously justified”
the euthanasia of excess animals “makes sense.”
racism is racism

All bare assertions with no argument to back them up other than their being stated.
 

SPAM I AM! includes this in his response to Mr. W:

"One of your less endearing qualities is your complete inability to admit that you are wrong. You are showing your ass here."

In turn, Mr. W cements the errors of SPAM I AM! such that SPAM I AM! should change his photo accompanying his comments to depict SPAM I AM!'s ass, which Mr. W has handed to SPAM I AM! too many times to tally. While the Cruz Canadacy was crushed "Back Home In Indiana," SPAM I AM! pursues Cruz's anti-immigration policy that basically coincides with that of Trump, perhaps hoping for a comeback of the Cruz Canadacy at the GOP convention.
 

Over at the VC Ilya Somins has a post titled:

"Alberto Gonzales’ dubious defense of Trump’s attack on Judge Curiel
The former attorney general's position is almost as badly misguided as Trump's own."

Ilya's "almost" is much too gentle.
 

And even earlier at the VC, Jonathan Adler posts this title:

"A response to Alberto Gonzales on Donald Trump and Judge Gonzalo Curiel
Professor Cassandra Robertson dissects bad arguments made in Trump's defense"

Alberto, infamous for his stints with Bush/Cheney, reminds us of the "Not-So-Speedy" Gonzales we became accustomed to.
 

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2016/06/the-appearance-of-improprietyor-impartiality-for-that-matter.html

One reply: "It is well-settled that the grounds raised by Gonzales are not only uncontroversial as non-grounds for recusal, but indeed, are sanctionable when raised by an attorney before a Court."

More analysis: http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2016/06/judging-donald-part-two.html

Volokh Conspiracy does provide the conservatives against Trump analysis.

Five months of this. Oh vey.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Mr. W:

You are now being flatly dishonest.

You incorrectly used the term ipse dixit to accuse me of employing that citation to authority logical fallacy when I contended that "racism is racism" no matter who employs it.

Ipse dixit is one of several versions of the citation to authority logical fallacy and does not require its own individual entry, although I provided one of those to you as well.

Engaging in the logical fallacy of killing the messenger (one of your favorites) does not change the facts that ipse dixit is a citation to authority logical fallacy and you were misusing it.

I did not argue that racism is racism "is self evident" as you suggest. You only (and correctly) assumed that my contention was self evident. [Argument tip: When you offer a genuinely self evident contention, it is redundant and ipse dixit to add "is self evident." Allow the contention to speak for itself.]

Finally, you falsely suggest that I was offering my personal opinion that la Raza applies to the mestizo race by offering a sentence fragment and intentionally omitting the linked sources from the la Raza movement whose opinions I was summarizing.

Your integrity is too important to throw away over an internet argument. Just admit you are wrong and salvage some of your dignity.
 

Query: Did Alberto "Not-So-Speedy" Gonzales publicly raise similar concerns in 2000 regarding the Supreme Court's role in Bush v. Gore?

Those taking the time to read commentary at the VC on this will learn that La Raza in the name of an organization is not monolithic for all organizations that include La Raza. SPAM I AM! assumes otherwise, but not wisely, as pointed out by Mr. W repeatedly. Yes, words have meanings, especially in context. SPAM I AM! has inhaled the anti-immigration fumes of not only the failed Cruz Canadacy but also that from the Trump-etym
 

SPAM I AM!'s desperate response to Mr. W:

"Your integrity is too important to throw away over an internet argument. Just admit you are wrong and salvage some of your dignity."

is a demonstration that SPAM I AM! has neither integrity nor dignity on the Internet or elsewhere.
 

Your integrity is too important to throw away over an internet argument. Just admit you are wrong and salvage some of your dignity.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 9:44 AM

Holy shit. You are the least self-aware person on the planet.

 

Bart, someone's being desperately dishonest, having once again confidently put forward his mouth over confidently about something he didn't know much about, but it's not me. It's you.
I'm happy to continue to educate you.

Ipse dixit literally translates to 'he himself has said it.' That fits perfectly with the OED and Merriam-Webster definitions that I supplied of a bare assertion. As I've explained, ipse dixit can be said to be 'related to' or 'in the same family of' appeals to authority. Appeals to authority share in common that instead of putting forth an actual argument there is nothing said except an appeal to some authority. In a traditional appeal to authority there is an appeal to some esteemed person ('Global warming must be true because Einstein said it was'). No argument is made except the statement of an esteemed person. Ipse dixit can be said to be similar because it is a bare statement, not an argument, the only thing offered is the statement of the person making the statement. Instead of appealing to an esteemed person's statement it appeals to the statement itself. Hence the translation: HE HIMSELF SAID IT. That's all that's there, the bare statement the maker of the statement made.

As the ODE and Merriam Webster definitions indicate, and as the SCOTUS opinion example illustrates, they're just bare assertions with nothing behind them. To reply to an argument that there's a difference between an oppressed race trying to find something especial about itself from a dominant race proclaiming its superiority with the *bare assertion* 'racism is racism' is pure, quintessential ipse dixit. Your argument is contrary to the examples I've cited, mine is not in any way contrary to yours, which you've misread (as I've explained here once again). And yes, many of your citations are questionable: communications professors are not experts on logic, high school prep sites are not as prestigious as the OED, Merriam Webster or SCOTUS. That doesn't in itself make the latter right and the former wrong, but it does make them more likely to be correct.

"I did not argue that racism is racism "is self evident" "

Wow, you really, really don't get it. The point is you offered no argument at all, just a bare assertion. That's what an ipse dixit it. 'Racism is racism' is not an argument, it is a bare assertion with nothing behind it other than that you said it ('he himself has said it').

"Finally, you falsely suggest that I was offering my personal opinion that la Raza applies to the mestizo race by offering a sentence fragment"

Look, you're famous for denying reality, but your writing is RIGHT HERE ON THIS BOARD.

Blogger Bart DePalma said...
The term La Raza or "the Race" refers to the mestizo people of Aztlan - a greater Mexico including the Southwest United States.

There is it. No fragment, no attribution to 'La Raza' sources. You wrote that the term refers to the mestizo people. It's there in black and white, no matter how you might wish it away. Talk about dishonesty! What's pathetic is that even if you were only referring to how those in La Raza use the term, then since the Council of La Raza is *there own name* then what *they mean by it* is THE COUNCIL OF THE MESTIZO RACE and therefore it is NO DIFFERENT than my examples 'the Committee of Jewish Americans,' 'the Congress for German Americans,' 'the National Association for the Advancement of the Black Race (colored people).' Either way you lose Bart.
 

The One reply" that Joe quoted would seem to suggest why Trump's attorneys in the class action have not formally raised a challenge to the trial judge. I can imagine someone like Trump ordering his attorneys to file such a challenge. And if he did, I can imagine that the attorneys declined on professional grounds. Further imagining, I can imagine Trump thinking of saying to his attorneys "You're fired!" But even the Donald, I imagine, would understand the legal AND political implications of such an act. It seems obvious that what's at stake for Trump with this class action is personal, and protecting his brand (Trump towers, Trump water, Trump vodka, Trump steaks, Trump U. and Trump whatever) is more important than serving the interests of America. I imagine this should be obvious even to his base of older undereducated white males.
 

Mr. W continues to correct SPAM I AM@ on "ipse dixit" while SPAM I AM! continues to "whistle Dixie." It's time for SPAM I AM! to "Look away, Look away, ...."
 

Yes, "what's at stake for Trump with this class action is personal, and protecting his brand," and by personally de-legitimizing the judge, he provides spin if he loses.

It's okay to admit a mistake. The Supreme Court today appeared to have granted a case to decide two issues involving a capital case, including Breyer's long concern regarding those on death row for decades. But, the Supreme Court submitted a corrected order list that removed that question and only will decide one question in that case involving the rules for determining intellectual disability guidelines.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/supreme-court-to-hear-cases-challenging-two-texas-death-sent
 

Joe: "Five months of this. Oh vey."
I bet you less. The chickens are coming home to roost much faster than I expected. There are a few brave commenters out there venturing that Trump will implode before the Republican convention. I personally give him a month after it, two to be generous. His campaign organisation is a shambles, the press that gave his provocations a free ride for so long has started checking them, he has started to meet real attacks from Clinton (quite unlike the feeble jabs of Rubio and Cruz) and has no idea how to meet them, and he is short of money. Will he exit in a huff, or just fade into insignificance like the village idiot muttering into his beer in the corner of the pub?
 

We shall see JW.
 

Query: What is Tushnet referring to in his latest post, re: Oakland?
 

Correction: It's "Oy vey!" (as in toy and convey).

Trump is alleged to be a teetotaler. He behaves more like a recovering alcoholic. As to the village idiot, he at least has the wisdom to occasionally have a beer. Here's a scene involving W. C. Fields in a film released in the 1930s called “It’s a Gift” and a character hostile to Fields says to him “You’re drunk.” Fields responds:

" Yeah, and you’re crazy, n’ I’ll be sober tomorrow n’ you’ll be crazy for the rest of your life."

There are variations attributable to Winston Churchill, one including an ugly woman critical of Churchill's imbibing.

Last week many late night comics were on hiatus. Let's see how they handle last week's Trump this week [With apologies to John Oliver.].

Along the lines of James' comment, sometime back in a comment at this Blog i suggested that if Trump did get the GOP nomination but ingloriously lost the general election, he might say that it was his plan all along to show up the 16 GOP Clowns he decimated, sort of a Plan B. But Trump probably has additional lettered plans so that he will not be a "Loser." Trump can exploit his brand: "In reality, I was a contender." Even a billionaire can extract only so much loyalty from his minions - and they can talk, creating their own brands.

But Trump has to stick to it to the end to make Plan B or alternatives work for him. But can he select Newt for VP who might succeed Trump if he were to drop out? How humiliating might that be for Newt? But I doubt that Newt will be his VP after Newt's criticisms of Trump this past week. And if Newt is not given the VP nomination, might Big Casino withhold his promised $100 million from Little Casino?
 

Mr. W: I'm not sure of the answer but you might check out David Bernstein's post at the VC titled:

***
Prominent Harvard Law professor: ‘The rule of law’ and ‘the First Amendment’ are ‘almost entirely without content’
Views like this help explain why Obama administration lawyers have sacrificed the rule of law to politics.

***

I don't subscribe to the WaPo and use my limited monthly freebies directly at WaPo. In concept the rule of law is important for democratic states. But defining what it really means, and how people agree agree upon it, can be difficult, like "all men are created equal." Tushnet's posts on this at this Blog need expounding. Perhaps he has an article outstanding on the subject that he could provide a link to.


 

Darn. Where's my NY values? Oy vey!

Gertrude Stein wrote of Oakland, “there is no there there,” and Tushnet in a previous post said "the rule of law" and "the First Amendment" are almost entirely without content." IOW, there is no there there. A bit exaggerated but that's the reference.
 

Speaking of John Oliver, as I was, a late night visit to the NYTimes website provided the "Last WeekThis Week" video on "Debt Buyers." It's quite interesting and The Donald might employ John's approach for PR image purposes. John formed a firm that became a debt buyer, purchasing just under $15 million in medical debt for $60,000 and then forgave the debt, all of it.
 

Oliver earlier married an Iraq War veteran who served as a US Army medic.

He's the master of PR.
 

Over at the NYTimes Michael Barbaro and another report on "A Biased Judge? Donald Trump Has Claimed it Before" that notes Trump Attorney Goldberg's "apologies" for raising such issues involving two NY State judges, one an African-American and the other a woman. There are additional articles on Trump's ordering his minions to continue negative comments against the trial judge in the CA class action against Trump U. Cruz and Rubio must be gnashing their teeth that they weren't aggressive enough in earlier challenging Trump. Now it's getting to one-on-one and Trump seems to be committing political suicide.
 

Ah, thanks Joe, I get it now.
 

Gertrude Stein's quote on her return to Oakland where she spent her early years might be close to "You can't go home again." Since Stein's discovery in the 1930s, Oakland produced the Oakland As, the Oakland Raiders and the Golden State Warriors, sports powerhouses of the past and currently. If Stein had been around during Oakland's sports successes, perhaps Oakland, rather than Paris, would have remained her hometown. I've been looking through some Stein quotes, looking for one that might fit The Donald today. [Is a contest in order?] Perhaps a variation on "A rose is a rose is a rose." Are there orange roses? I realize this is a prickly subject for small hands and mind. Cue to Groucho:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqPEDHqvtF0

I raise my stein of Belgian beer with a wedged orange slice ("Trump Beer"?) to toast Groucho who would help to explain The Donald in context.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Mr. W: The point is you offered no argument at all, just a bare assertion. That's what an ipse dixit it. 'Racism is racism' is not an argument, it is a bare assertion with nothing behind it other than that you said it ('he himself has said it').

:::chuckle:::

I presume then that I would be engaging in ipse dixit if I observed Mr. W is Mr. W?

Please.

The he in "he himself said it" refers to the cited authority.

Mr W: Bart DePalma said...The term La Raza or "the Race" refers to the mestizo people

BD: Finally, you falsely suggest that I was offering my personal opinion that la Raza applies to the mestizo race by offering a sentence fragment"

Mr, W: Look, you're famous for denying reality, but your writing is RIGHT HERE ON THIS BOARD. Blogger Bart DePalma said...The term La Raza or "the Race" refers to the mestizo people of Aztlan - a greater Mexico including the Southwest United States. There is it. No fragment, no attribution to 'La Raza' sources.

Now that you have bothered to quote my full sentence, you offer the bald faced lie that I did not follow that sentence and the following paragraphs summarizing up the views of the la Raza movement with links to la Raza movement sources.

For anyone who cares, see my 10:44 am leading post at the top of the thread.

Either way you lose Bart.

You are really sacrificing your integrity to win an internet argument?

Whatever.

If it makes you feel better about yourself, you win.
 

"The he in "he himself said it" refers to the cited authority."

*He himself,* it's that the all the statement has behind it is the statement by the stater. Again, my explanation fits with both your cited sources and mine, yours does not. Are we to believe you over the OED, Merriam-Webster and SCOTUS, to take a few examples?

"For anyone who cares, see my 10:44 am leading post at the top of the thread."

As I explained, even if your statement was supposed to be (because it clearly wasn't explicit) only about how *they* understand the term then you still lose, because it means that for *them* Council of La Raza means 'Council of the Mestizo Race,' which is indistinguishable from the other group examples I gave. I've mentioned this several times now, along with many other problems with your arguments, and there is no substantive response from you, you're whipped and know it.
 

If it makes you feel better about yourself, you win.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 10:26 AM

Watching you get clubbed like a baby seal makes us all feel pretty good.

 

How would he feel if it was a Libyan-American judge?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/danielwagner/how-trump-tried-to-get-qaddafis-cash

After one more Super Tuesday, really looking bad for the Not Trump group but Sanders did win Montana and North Dakota so not quite giving up! Sanders will never surrender, if only as a state of mind. DC (D) primary next Tuesday finishes things.


 

Oopsie! The Trump U class action lawsuit has just been decertified, on a showing by Trump that most of the class members were on record saying they were happy with the education they'd gotten.

Individual students are still able to sue him, but this is really going to weaken political use of the case to argue that Trump is as legally compromised as Hillary.
 

"The Trump U class action lawsuit has just been decertified"

From what I understand, and I haven't seen this in any reputable source yet, it was decertified as to damages, not liability.

"this is really going to weaken political use of the case to argue that Trump is as legally compromised as Hillary"

Who would have thought Brett might jump to a conclusion that's not quite correct when that conclusion fits with his current partisan wishes? And see, when later reports continue about the class action suit going forward, Brett would just say it was a luberal media conspiracy, why he knows full well there's no class action anymore! What else are they hiding from us???
 

Brett emerges from his self-imposed silence as the shill for Trump at this Blog with breaking news. During Brett's silence, he did not providing the breaking news on AGs of TX and FL who dropped their investigations of Trump U. complaints, followed rather quickly by Trump Foundation political contributions to those AGs.

Perhaps in Brett's mind, being of a non-legal nature, he believes that Trump's recent outbursts about the class action trial judge brought the trial judge to his senses. But it doesn't work that way. The efforts of Trump's attorneys to decertify had been earlier underway. Such issues take time to develop, with pleadings, briefs, hearings, etc. A cynic might perhaps take the position that the trial judge, with his history of challenging as a US Attorney the Mexican drug cartels might like the idea of a wall that Trump would build and make Mexico pay for it. Perhaps funding will be started to finance those eliminated from the class to pursue individual law suits against Trump/Trump U., with extensive discovery including depositions of Trump and others associated with Trump U. to keep Trump and his attorneys busy.

But the mindset of Brett doesn't appreciate that the complaining Trump U. students fit within the Trump political base: older undereducated white males. Perhaps in time Brett and his ilk that constitute that base will come to terms that Trump will not resolve their real concerns: the changing demographics. These complaining Trump U. students swallowed a huge con. The TX and FL Ags earlier referenced should be shamed. The actions of AGs in situations such as this are supportive of the rights of individuals who may not be able to afford the costs of private lawsuits. Fortunately, the NY AG is continuing his proceedings against Trump U.

So Brett emerges from the Trump U. pile with a pony. But that pony cannot pull the load of the Trump U. crap.
 

I just finished reading Samuel R. Olken's "The Refrated Constitution: Classical Liberalism and the Lessons of History" that reffs on Richard Epstein and Herbert Hovenkamp's contrasting views. It's only 12 pages and a great read.
 

Shaq's mentioning of the FL and TX AG stories, which I had not heard of before (I'm terrible about keeping up with current news) sparked me to look up more on it. Here's one story I found:

"Late Monday night, the AP released a bombshell report that brought the picture into sharp relief: Bondi, a Republican, “personally solicited a political contribution from Donald Trump” around the time she announced she was considering joining a probe of Trump University—then, after receiving the check, nixed her office’s plan to take part in the investigation into the institution."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/07/florida_attorney_general_pam_bondi_halted_trump_university_investigation.html

Now, let me channel my inner Bart or Brett in order to demonstrate how a mirror image of themselves would react to this story.

Trump has bribed a public official into dropping an investigation against him, that means Trump (and the AG) are felons having violated several federal and perhaps state corruption and bribery laws!!!! The fact that Republicans are going to support this man demonstrates how used to voting for felons the GOP has become!!! It's maddening the lengths some conservatives will go to to defend this kind of felonious behavior!!!
 

Oopsie indeed. Does that mean Trump (who even Brett said was "wrong") caused all this trouble for nothing? Because, remember, the thing that really upset people here was not a single lawsuit (there are multiple ones to pick from), but his remarks against the judge. Yes, the single lawsuit alone reflects facts that don't look good for him, but let's not forget (I realize spin is for that purpose) the other stuff.

[For the sake of argument, remember, even if he is not legally liable, this doesn't mean his actions don't make him look bad in general. This works for Clinton as appropriate too of course though words like "felon" has more emotional weight. Anyway, see, e.g., here on Trump: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/low-dollar-same-grift -- but, it's clear by now that various of his personal and business practices by someone else would be distasteful to many of his supporters. After all, he at one point was a registered Democrat!]

As noted by Shag and Mr. W., however, the key point remains that (from Brett's link) the judge ("the court") "allowed the suit to proceed on the claim of liability." The article then says that the court determined that "separate legal actions to recover damages" was warranted. Was this correct? I don't know -- at times, the rules are too strict there though sometimes that is the right way to go. But, "oopsie," the stuff that upset GM and others across the ideological spectrum doesn't just disappear.

But, with respect, if one is biased, this will matter a whole lot less.

The timing of the "current news" is pretty suspicious, especially to the totally objective person concerned about quid pro quos. For instance, this didn't happen years before the administration was assumed to be in place (as Brett's amused example), but much more suspiciously on a temporal level.

Again, if one is biased, one will care a whole lot less about this. Plus, this is a concern of those who support campaign finance reform: some types of donations have a strong likelihood to threaten the integrity of elections, the judicial process and so forth. Thus, for all of our existence, regulations were in place to set rules on what is proper there. Absolute proof isn't required for these rules to kick in. And, again, even if it is not clear legally anything was wrong, it is one more troublesome data point for Trump, making it harder (contra let's say a Sanders) to make him a great anti-Clinton voice.

As to the "Hillary will sell us to the highest bidder" concern, we also have received reports about Trump trying to profit off Muammar Gaddafi. The objective person would find this a concern as well. Others, like someone I know IRL, will be left with forlorn hopes that suddenly Trump after seventy years will act differently once he becomes President. It helps however to selectively look at his record, picking and choosing. Careful. Oopsie!

I appreciate Mr. W.'s mostly calm (mixed in some scorn) refutation of BP, but it's hard to deal with such subjective people. Maybe, if you plumpet them five times, eventually, they will come to a small point of sanity but it really is hard slogging. Still, if you don't, you are just a close-minded leftie. Oy vey.
 

Anyway, as to James W., we had a moment around the Wisconsin Primary when Trump looked like he was really in trouble. Then, he dominated a bunch of primaries and won Indiana.

So, his campaign's death throes aren't quite here yet. Trump will have time over the next month to put on a bit less offensive face to his campaign and a reasonable type (Gov. Mary Fallon?) as veep will help a lot. There is also the general idea that the process works in a certain way and the Republican Party generally coming around him as the nominee shows this.
 

The Doonesbury look-back book on The Donald is to be released (coincidentally) in time for the GOP Convention.
 

Mr. W had such fun with SPAM I AM! with ipse dixit, I have taken Joe's "oopsie" to create a non-latin response to Brett:

"Oopsie Dixie"

for his mis-arguments. Hopefully Mr. W will do the honors.
 

"He himself has oopsied!"
 

Looks like Trump owes his "Mexican" judge who decertified the class as to damages a big thank you because this ruling nukes the Democrat class action firm. Instead of damages for the class, the firm will only get the comparatively minuscule percentage of damages for the handful of directly named plaintiffs in the case. I am sure that the attorney hours spent on this case FAR exceed whatever percentage these plaintiff's may gain at trial.

I am curious whether Judge Curiel will allow the Democrat law firm to file an interlocutory appeal of the class action ruling or push this to trial as scheduled?
 

Mr. W: Late Monday night, the AP released a bombshell report that brought the picture into sharp relief: Bondi, a Republican, “personally solicited a political contribution from Donald Trump” around the time she announced she was considering joining a probe of Trump University—then, after receiving the check, nixed her office’s plan to take part in the investigation into the institution."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/07/florida_attorney_general_pam_bondi_halted_trump_university_investigation.html

Actually, here is the money quote from your article:

According to the AP, Bondi and Trump spoke “several weeks” before her office announced it was considering joining the New York attorney general’s pending lawsuit against Trump University. Four days after that announcement, a group supporting Bondi called And Justice for All received a $25,000 check from a Trump family foundation, apparently in violation of rules governing charities’ political activity. Shortly after the check arrived, Bondi's office scrapped its plans to join the lawsuit, insisting it lacked sufficient grounds to proceed.

This might be enough of a coincidence to start a criminal investigation (so long as one of the target's names is not Clinton), but not much more than that. Neither Trump or Bondi are directly involved in either end of this transaction. Proving bribery under these facts absent a confession from either Trump or Bondi is almost impossible.
 

"Neither Trump or Bondi are directly involved in either end of this transaction."

This is no problem for Mirror Bart or Brett. He just says 'are we supposed to believe that Bondi and Trump didn't know what was going on in these groups? That Trump's foundation just donated this money because of its sudden admiration of Bondi's work as AG? It's maddening the lengths some conservatives will go to to defend this kind of felonious behavior!!!'
 

Mr. W:

If you are the Democrat Slate playing the innuendo with a GOP presidential candidate, there is more than enough there there.

Hell, I have zero doubt that Trump has been bribing NY/NJ Dems and labor union mafias for decades as the cost of building in these states.

EVIDENCE is a different kettle of fish, though.

Bribery cases are difficult to prove because you need evidence that the target himself or someone under his orders made the payment to a public figure and the target intended the payment to cause the public figure to change an official action.

You notice that I do not claim that Clinton is a felon for what is quite obviously a scam to sell influence through Bill and Hillary's speeches and the Clinton Foundation paying their lavish travel, lodging and dining expenses because I have no evidence of the intent of a particular donor or the Clinton quid pro quo for that donor..


 

So let's describe SPAM I AM! as the go-to Libertarian law firm for DUI legal defenses of alleged drunks in his CO community. (Substitute "Republican" or "Conservative" for "Libertarian" as SPAM I AM! changes his ffiliation following the disaster of the Cruz Canadacy.)
 

"Mirror" versions -- as we learn from Star Trek -- have suspicious looking beards. But, in this case, I guess there is a clean shaven version of BP.
 

But, in this case, I guess there is a clean shaven version of BP.

:::heh:::

Not since I was an Army intel officer back during the first Clinton administration.

Damn I'm getting old....
 

Reportedly, Hillary Clinton and her team of crack lieutenants at State discussed top secret prospective CIA drones strikes in Pakistan over unsecured emails, including Clinton's unsecured and hacked server.

Team Clinton are not even denying the report. Instead, they offered the everyone does it at State defense:

Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said: “If these officials’ descriptions are true, these emails were originated by career diplomats, and the sending of these types of emails was widespread within the government.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-emails-in-probe-dealt-with-planned-drone-strikes-1465509863

I guess if the Obama State Department is filled with incompetent felons, that is no reason to criminally prosecute their incompetent felon boss.

Why not just cc copies of the top secret emails directly to Russian, Chinese, Iranian and even Taliban intelligence?

 

The first person who used the word here is a Republican law professor (and he's not alone) that is not a member of "the left," it had content to back it up and your loose usage of words makes you a poor prophet for word correctness. So, I'm with Mark Field.

Anyway, I noted in a past thread "racism" in general usage is used broadly and a quick search of "Mexican" and "racism" underlines the point. But, if Trump is "not trivially wrong" for prejudice of another kind, okay. But, again, the professor -- not "the left" -- is to blame in this case since he is the one who set the terms.
in thiệp chúc mừng năm mới
mẫu thiệp chúc mừng năm mới 2017 đẹp
in thiệp chúc mừng năm mới 2017

And, though you can't just say it w/o taking potshots at "the left" (is it a tic?), it's a small victory you said he was "wrong." OTOH, the better answer was "not trivially wrong."

What people who "riot at Trump rallies" has to do with this specific judge is unclear to me, other than more scattershot stereotyping and changing the subject. Telling.
 

Joe's reflections on the mirror dealing with careless and hairless may lead to the intriguing discovery that de-bearding of careless may reveal hairless. (Cue to Lionel Hampton's "Hey Barber [sic] Rebop.") Shades of the Magic Mirror in Snow White with the Queen adapting: "Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the ugliest of them all?" Here are some Quotes on Mirrors:

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/mirrors

to reflect upon. No, this is not another contest, merely an opportunity to use our imaginations on what could be quite shattering images.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], check out David Brooks' NYTimes column today with his psych analysis of The Donald. Apparently one does not need a license in dealing with the licentious.
 

"Bribery cases are difficult to prove"

And likewise as every prosecutor dealing with such cases who I've ever heard or read says, proving someone in Clinton's situation knowingly (the mens rea) violated the law is difficult to prove.
 

SPAM I AM! in reflecting on Joe's mirror imagination informs us for the 3,456th time [check this out if you don't believe it] of his former military life:

Not since I was an Army intel officer back during the first Clinton administration."

Then he observes:

"Damn I'm getting old...."

Maybe SPAM I AM!can re-up for the second Clinton Administration. While SPAM I AM! is growing older, he is getting more bitter.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], the title "intel officer" has no connection to being intellectual. So much for playing the military card once again.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

BD: "Bribery cases are difficult to prove"

Mr, W: And likewise as every prosecutor dealing with such cases who I've ever heard or read says, proving someone in Clinton's situation knowingly (the mens rea) violated the law is difficult to prove.

As opposed to intent, knowledge is not normally a difficult standard to prove in criminal law and is easy with the Clinton email misdemeanor crimes because of her multiple public admissions.

1) Clinton has repeatedly and publicly admitted that she knew her official correspondence contained classified materials.

2) Clinton signed the standard non-disclosure agreement laying out the law for her.

3) Clinton knew she conducted all of her official correspondence over her unsecured private email server.

4) There are also rules setting out categories of information which are automatically classified and she has publicly admitted that she knew the classification rules.

The first three facts are enough to prove a single misdemeanor charge covering all of her emails. Adding in the fourth fact allows potentially hundreds of misdemeanor charges for individual emails. The FBI appears to be concentrating on obviously classified military operations.

The Democrat attorneys and pundits claiming that the prosecutor would have to prove some mal intent either have not read the law or are lying for public political consumption.
 

There are red flags aplenty here, but for now I'll note how Bart went from talking about 'felon boss' to an analysis entirely about misdemeanors. Interesting, no?
 

Mr. W: There are red flags aplenty here, but for now I'll note how Bart went from talking about 'felon boss' to an analysis entirely about misdemeanors. Interesting, no?

You were referring to the knowledge standard in the misdemeanor charge for storing classified information in uncleared locations. I was responding to your comment and you offer this red herring.

Quiz time Wiskas! What felony crime did Clinton commit?

I laid out the evidence and law for you previously. Let's see if you retained any of it.
 

SPAM I AM! with this:

"The Democrat attorneys and pundits claiming that the prosecutor would have to prove some mal intent either have not read the law or are lying for public political consumption."

once again engages in group defamation. And we get the legal views of this one time Army intel officer who after an illustrious (self-proclaimed) military career achieved the acme of his legal career in CO providing legal defenses to his alleged drunk clients in criminal DUI proceedings, claiming to be the top DUI legal dog atop his small mountaintop community. Perhaps one has to be under the influence of legal recreational Ganja in his Mile High State (of mind) to accept his attempts at legal analyses of complex legal subjects.
 

Shag:

Of the two of us, who has a couple decades experience prosecuting and defending criminal charges?

Indeed, I may be the only professor or attorney here that practices criminal law.
 

Not big on commenting on other posts w/o comments allowed, but the discussion of Muhammad Ali's legal problems (also discussed in a special post at SCOTUSBlog) is very interesting.

The case was discussed in "The Brethren," which perhaps first discussed how close Ali was from going to prison. It also was made into a HBO movie, "Muhammed Ali's Greatest Fight," which wasn't that good, but it was fun to see all the justices portrayed. Christopher Plummer portrayed Justice John Harlan, who turned out to be something of a hero in the story.

http://www.hbo.com/movies/muhammad-alis-greatest-fight

Those interested in the Burger Court can also check out a new book co-written by Linda Greenhouse. One can listen to the oral argument of Cassius Marsellus CLAY, Jr. also known as Muhammad Ali v. UNITED STATES at Oyez.com.
 

"Of the two of us, who has a couple decades experience prosecuting and defending criminal charges?"

If there's going to be a conclusion based upon relevant experience I'll go with those, unlike yourself, who have actually prosecuted these types of federal cases. The ones I've read in this category say they're notoriously hard to get a guilty adjudication for.

"Quiz time Wiskas!"

No, no, no time for such foolishness. You made a case once that I recall and I explained how it had more holes than Swiss cheese. If you've got one to make here, make it.
 

Mr. W:

If you are going to play the citation to authority card, feel free to offer links to these former federal prosecutors.

This should be fun.
 

Based on SPAM I AM!'s extensive commenting at this Blog, including his efforts at self-promotion, it would seem that SPAM I AM!'s criminal practice is part-time, concentrating in DUI, a minor subset of criminal law defense involving plea deals over actual full blown trials at municipal court levels. While I comment at this Blog quite often, it has been in my semi-retirement, phasing out of the active practice of law. Quite frankly, during my salad days in the practice of law, in order to put meat and potatoes on the table, I did not have the time away from my practice to comment at a blog, or even spend time reviewing legal blogs, especially during the work day. (At other hours, I would have to be involved with family, especially the demands of four children.) So SPAM I AM! can promote himself as a criminal attorney even though his focus is on DUI defense. But those in the legal profession are well aware that one doesn't go to law school with a goal being a DUI criminal attorney, rather one may dream of major criminal trial attorneys, fictional and factual, to emulate. SPAM I AM! can ride that DUI pony as a "criminal lawyer" only so far when it comes to opining at a blog on complex criminal laws with limited facts.
 

Shag:

DUI is about a third of my criminal practice and is more complex than many felonies because it is a strict liability offense using scientific and quasi-scientific evidence to permit rebuttable jury inferences of impairment.

Being a former tax attorney, let me know if I have to explain any of that to you.
 

"Looking Closer at Trump’s Attacks on Judge Curiel"

https://verdict.justia.com/2016/06/10/looking-closer-trumps-attacks-judge-curiel

Also, Biden and Warren gave speeches to the ACS: http://www.acslaw.org/multimedia


 

SPAM I AM! attempts to present himself as somewhat of a legal authority at this Blog. Hehas/had his own blog but it got rural traffic. So he attempts to troll and spin his views at this Blog. But he has had his derriere handed to him so many times, he continues to attempt to puff up his credentials. Note that SPAM I AM! didn't take the bait on his being a part-timer but continues with his dead end comments. Does SPAM I AM! bill clients for his time on the Internet? SPAM I AM! is a hustler. But he demonstrates continually political bias in many if not most of his comments. I have had a long career practicing law. I visit this Blog to learn. That's not why SPAM I AM! comes to this Blog. Imagine his bragging this:

"Indeed, I may be the only professor or attorney here that practices criminal law."

His credentials are self proclaimed. As noted, he's a hustler and a political hack. He has been effectively challenged on legal positions he has taken. He spouts vitriol. Perhaps I should revert to referring to him as "'Rhoidless" for his "perfection."

 

So, no case to make Bart?
 

joe, your post about the HBO film makes me wonder, what are the favorite big screen representations of the SCOTUS for our commenters here? I rather like Amistad, the People vs. Larry Flynt and Gideon's Trumpet in that regard.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Mr. W: So, no case to make Bart?

I made the case.

You claimed that I could not prove mens rea based on a citation to authority fallacy without the benefit of actual citations.

If you want to play some more, give us all links to your former federal prosecutors (not Democrat media sourcing unidentified attorneys) who claim that it will be difficult to prove Clinton's knowledge of her criminal storage and provision of classified materials to uncleared servers and people.

Most actual former federal prosecutors and judges opine that the proof ranges from strong to overwhelming.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/we-fact-checked-trumps-claim-that-virtually-every-single-legal-expert-say-clinton-committed-a-crime/

On google, I was only able to find one former Democrat prosecutor and Hillary Clinton donor who simply assumed the truth of the spin issued by the Obama state department to distinguish the prosecution of David Petraeus from the investigation of Hillary Clinton.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/30/clinton-controversy-no-comparison-petraeus-column/71421242/?AID=10709313&PID=4003003&SID=ip9y75g1df013nxn00dth
 

"I made the case."

No, you haven't. If you have one to make, make it.
 

Mr. W:

To sum up, you have nothing. I expected as much.

The only real obstacle to a Clinton indictment is a corrupt Obama Justice Department.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Those are good choices, Mr. W. regarding movies.

Would also recommend some others that were all t.v. movies regarding Brown v. Bd. (Sidney Poiter and Burt Lancaster), Buck v. Bell (Marlee Matlin) and Loving v. Virginia (Timothy Hutton and Lela Rochon; a new one is coming out).

PBS had a series on the Marshall Court that included short films portraying Marbury v. Madison and a few other cases that were also quite good. They can be found on YouTube.

Looking forward to the movie due in a couple years based on an early case Ruth Bader Ginsburg worked on.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Two fictional movies that I enjoyed regarding the Supreme Court are "First Monday in October" (Walter Matthau and Jill Clayburgh) and "The Talk of the Town" (Jean Arthur and Cary Grant).


 

No, no Bart, you've made no case. You're the one alleging Clinton is a felon, and you've made no case on that here. You want to deflect to talk about whatever expert I cite, but first it's your burden to make a case.
 

Joe, I didn't know about those made for t.v. ones or the big screen ones you mention, have to look into that!
 

" You're the one alleging Clinton is a felon, and you've made no case on that here."

Good lord, we've both cited lines of federal code, we've shown you the form she had to sign, which made it clear that she had to treat classified information as classified regardless of whether it was marked.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "Neener, neener!" doesn't equal us not having made a case.
 

Brett may have the skills (as well as a desire) to build a bridge to nowhere but he is inept at making a case in court. And so is 'Rhoidless. Their tandem efforts at tedious repetition of their biased political views can be tiresome but responses to their crapola is necessary. They may be convincing each other but I'm not aware of anyone else. But that's what trolls do.
 

Brett, can you tell me how we can know that Clinton "knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States...any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—"

Walk us through each relevant step.
 

You want me to walk you through it? Fine.

Hillary's server company, Platte River Networks, lacked a security clearance, had physical possession of the server.

She knew they had physical possession of it.

She knew the emails she was sending through the server contained classified information.

Ergo, she knowingly placed classified information into the hands of people who lacked the required security clearance.

An open and shut, knowing, felony violation of 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information.

Anybody at Platte could have copied the hard drive on that server at any time, dropped a copy of at the Russian embassy.

Did they? We may never know. But it was a criminal act for her to even give them the chance.


 

Brett says:

" ... open and shut ...."

Rather his mouth is open and his mind is shut. Now maybe if he had acted as his own attorney in his divorce case, .... I assume that Brett checked the language of the statute. But did he read, analyze cases addressing the statute, or conduct other legal research?
 

Brett, at first glance I see some complications for your theory:

First, according to the statutory language the communications must have fallen into the four enumerated categories. What evidence is there that communications falling into one of them occurred?

Second, the statute says "As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution"

What evidence exists that any of the communications were "*at the time of a violation of this section*, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution" and that Clinton knew this when she made the communications?

It's also unclear whether, when she sent the communications, Clinton knew that she was in some way sending them *to* or making them available an unauthorized person such as the server provided. Not everyone understands how these things work.


 

"First, according to the statutory language the communications must have fallen into the four enumerated categories. What evidence is there that communications falling into one of them occurred?"

Bit of a catch 22 you're constructing here, isn't it? The IG report makes it plain that numerous emails containing information classified secret and above were found on her server. But, of course, being classified secret and above, the contents of those emails is not public. Some of the stuff on it was so secret, the FBI agents currently conducting the criminal investigation had to have their security clearances upgraded.

But, #4 is "sigint" and Hillary Clinton emails contained signal intelligence from spy satellites

#4? Check.


 

"It's also unclear whether, when she sent the communications, Clinton knew that she was in some way sending them *to* or making them available an unauthorized person such as the server provided. Not everyone understands how these things work."

No, it's quite clear that she was aware that, if she used the official system, her emails would be archived by it, and would be available for other people, legally authorized, to get at. Something she went to great pains to avoid.

How could she be aware that government IT would have access to her emails if she used the official system, and not be aware that her private IT would have access to them if she used her system?

Is your theory here that she's mentally incompetent or insane? Try to remember that you're defending her in order to claim she's qualified to be President, not to suggest that she belongs in senior assisted living.
 

Brett,

When I clicked on the link you supplied at your 8:37 PM comment, and then clicked on the link it linked to for the relevant information, it gave me a '404 message...

That's just one point I raised...
 

You'll have to be more specific about which link didn't work as the Washington Times stupidly turned every third word in that article into a link. I don't know that there's any further link needed to be followed. The following seems sufficient:

"This week, I. Charles McCullough III, the intelligence community’s inspector general, revealed that not only did a small sampling of Mrs. Clinton’s 30,000 emails turned over to State contain classified information, but two held data that were top-secret — the highest classification.

Mr. McCullough went further. The top-secret information was labeled “SI,” which is intelligence community parlance for “special intelligence.” Special intelligence is intercepted communications from foreign targets.

In addition, the intercept came from code word “talent keyhole,” (TK), which stands for the nation’s military satellites and their production of classified imagery and intercepted communications.

Some of the emails contained Sigint. That's category 4, so the US code I cited applies.
 

Gideon's Trumpet btw was a t.v. movie itself.
 

Gideon was decided by the Warren Court in 1963. Gideon has been described as white. He had a significant criminal record. Earlier decisions of the Court had required appointment of counsel for indigent criminal defendants under special circumstances that according to the lower courts Gideon did not satisfy. This case did not directly involve racial issues. But since the Warren Court's decision in Brown v. Bd. of Educ. a civil rights movement was developing. Some conservatives were concerned with the Court's decision in Gideon that it would or could benefit African American criminal defendants, especially with the continuation of the civil rights movement. Gideon thus contributed to the conservative opposition to the Warren Court (and later the Burger Court) for its judicial activism, that spawned the conservative/libertarian movements of originalism and the Federalist Society in the late 1970s. Jim Crow laws, disguised as law and order issues, could be better challenged by indigent criminal defendants because of Gideon.

What if Gideon had been an African American? Might there have been more immediate opposition to the Court's decision? Eventually conservatives stopped direct challenges of Brown, focusing on what conservatives perceived as judicial activism with Gideon and other decisions involving individual rights. In 1968 Nixon had his law and order Southern Strategy as the civil rights movement continued to progress. Gideon has been watered down a bit beginning with the Rehnquist Court. While conservatives stress the bill of rights for protecting individuals, it's been on a selected basis. Does the current generation of members of the Federalist Society recognize the Society's foundation as a challenge to the civil rights movement?
 

Mr. W / Brett:

Nearly all of our intelligence is gathered by communications intelligence and all such intelligence is autonatically classified by tge gatherer to protect the gathering nethods.

Do you recall the stink when Snowden disclosed that NSA collects intelligence on the other parties in trade talks? All of that was classified and I am sure that Clinton's emails are full of it.

In addition to her IT firm, Clinton provided these rmails to her IT person (who is under an immunity agreement), her lawyer and his firm, and heaven knows how many uncleared email correspondents.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

The other interesting part of this case which does not get much coverage is whether Clinton ordered her aides to cut and paste material from intelligence documents marked classified and email her that text without narkings, which was strongly suggested by one published email.

Justice could make out a wire fraud and conspiracy case.

They would have to flip at least one aide.
 

Meanwhile, Brett and 'Rhoidless continue playing legal "dope-a-hope."
 

"The Warren Court and American Politics" by Lucas Powe Jr. notes that many cases involving the Bill of Rights (and this in fact goes back before the Warren Court) were basically race cases. This includes NYT v. Sullivan (press) and even the re-apportionment cases in a way were (urban voters were particularly affected and were more likely to be minorities).

Gideon (ironically defended at the Supreme Court by José Ferrer ... no Abe Fortas, a top lawyer of the day) was an ideal case. He was basically a miscreant found guilty of stealing some change from a pool hall. Not very scary. For instance, Powe noted shortly before his case came up, the Supreme Court dealt with enough indigent without counsel -- he was found guilty of incest. The case was disposed of the usual "special circumstances" approach, the law at the time being that non-capital state defendants didn't have a right to paid counsel except if "special circumstances" (such as illiteracy) was present.

Compare this to Miranda, who was convicted of rape. The power to control its docket does let the Supreme Court to find cases with good facts. As to Gideon itself, he did make a good 'face,' but the basic idea of having a lawyer might be so basic, so American, that it mattered somewhat less than other cases.

 

Shag:

I have no hope whatsoever that this outlaw regime will enforce the law against their party's presidential nominee.

I have some small hope that FBI is not similarly corrupted and that the Bureau will leak their findings and hopefully a copy of their report when the Obama Justice Department tries to sit on the case until after the election.


 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

California has a new open primary approach that has led to two Democrats alone being on the ballot for U.S. Senate (assume people can write-in).

Thought experiment. Let's say one had various legal problems and there was good evidence the person (who is running on her business record* since she had no government service, the other candidate has long service there in a range of ways) broke civil and criminal rules. Next, the person doesn't like criticism, and repeatedly speaks about how she will "get" or others should "get" critics in various ways, including libel or by some sort of investigation.

She's more for results than strictly following rules, assuring us (with weak details) she will get stuff down if giving free rein. She appeals to racism, sexism and other unpleasant things. She has various authoritarian tendencies. Doesn't seem to know what she is talking about repeatedly (she has some good ghost-written position papers but her pragmatic, free range style makes it iffy to rely on them) & likewise repeatedly seems just a big bs artist, over and over again shown to be lying. And, in fact, she was once a Republican (she went back and forth).

Doesn't sound like something many a principled conservative or libertarian might want to vote for but you know at least she isn't the other person! Not sure the possibility (if all the technical details involved in a mala prohibita crime goes against her) of some misuse of government email (especially if she can show others did something similar in her position) will be enough. But, ymmv there.


----

* Her personal success (mixed record but she was pretty successful) aside, big picture, her business style isn't really appealing in a "good of the whole" sort of way.

http://fortune.com/2016/03/10/trump-hotel-casinos-pay-failure/
 

The Rehnquist Court has made significant cutbacks to Miranda compared with Gideon. But through lack of funding especially at the state level, including in particular in the former slave states, public defenders have been overworked with huge caseloads that they often cannot provide effective counsel to indigent criminal defendants, another form of inequality. There have been recent bipartisan movements regarding opioid addictions that coincidentally came to the attention of federal and state legislators when itbecame aware of the many whites so addicted, recognizing that the war on drugs has been a failure; too bad that was not "discovered" prior to the opioit addiction spread into white communities. Fairness and justice should be available on an equal basis. But lack of funding public defenders is a backdoor form of Jim Crow.
 

Joe: Doesn't sound like something many a principled conservative or libertarian might want to vote for but you know at least she isn't the other person!

Indeed. This principled libertarian conservative does not vote for the lesser of two genuine evils.

Now let's expand on that thought experiment.

The other candidate also has a long history of personally attacking political opponents, including the various women who have accused her husband of rape and various other sexual misconduct. There is almost no subject about which the other candidate has not lied or changed her position multiple times.

Furthermore, the other candidate and her husband have amassed a personal fortune of over $100 million dollars from "speaking fees" paid by various foreign governments and corporations while the candidate was in or running for public office.

Finally, the other candidate has committed several hundred misdemeanor and felony crimes, most likely compromised national security, and more importantly subjected herself to blackmail while in public office, by conducting her classified correspondence on an unsecured personal email.

Doesn't sound like someone for whom any principled voter would cast a ballot, even as a lesser of two evils.




 

Is SPAM I AM! speaking for "This principled libertarian conservative"? In the case of SPAM I AM! that would be oxymoronic. But what qualifies SPAM I AM! as spokesperson for such a group that may be non-existant or quite limited in size. Consider the 1% vote that the Libertarian Party received in 2012. Johnson/Weld may do better in 2016, but most likely it will draw non-Libertarian conservatives from the GOP who are not principled. Or did SPAM I AM! mean to say "principalled [sic] libertarian conservative"?
 

Shag:

Being principled and having honor means that you do not give a damn if you are utterly alone in doing the right thing.

On the other hand, you will gladly join the probable unprincipled plurality voting for a lying, corrupt felon.

The distinction speaks for itself.
 

The distinction speaks for itself.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 3:27 PM

Says the piece of shit who supported torture.



 

Since we are in the doldrums with Sandy in Europe and Gerard working on what he calls "The Bill of Rights" should consist of, there has been a lot of recycling in this thread. So I thought it might be interesting to bring up the recent decision by the Court in Williams v. PA on required recusal of a judge. This came to mind because of a post at the Originalism Blog on a post by Josh Blackman at his blog suggesting (or even stronger?) the decision as overturning Marbury v. Madison because CJ Marshall should have recused himself for his role in the Adams Administration regarding the failure to deliver commissions. I assume readers of this comment know enough about Marbury so I don't plan to go into any detail. Rather, those interested might read Sandy and Jack's "What are the facts of Marbury v. Madison?" in Constitutional Commentary, Volume 20, Number 2, Summer 2003, pp. 255-281. I have commented on this article several times at this Blog. Josh doesn't mention the article in his blog post and comments are closed (not that I would have).

Marbury is of course a major decision under the Constitution. Sandy and Jack in their article recite a lot of facts missing from the decision, including the role of Marshall in the Adams Administration at issue in Marbury. When I read this article back when it was published, I wondered about the extent to which there are "facts" that may be relevant that are not disclosed in decisions of the Court.

As to Josh's claim of the impact of the recent decision in Williams on Marbury, perhaps Sandy or Jack might provide a post and get us out of the doldrums.
 

Didn't read the post from another anti-Trump conservative but Justice Thomas in his dissent in that case did flag Marbury as support for letting the judge serve here.

===

Robertson v. Baldwin (1897) argued:

The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case.

One exception cited is concealed weapons and the 9th Cir. recently cited this ruling along with other history to uphold a current day ban:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/appeals-court-no-2nd-amendment-right-concealed-carry


 

"One exception cited is concealed weapons and the 9th Cir. recently cited this ruling along with other history to uphold a current day ban:"

Well, sure, and I agree that there is, in fact, no constitutional right to carry concealed.

There's a constitutional right to CARRY.

Established doctrine, across the country until this ruling, was that the government could permit open carry, concealed carry, or both, as it chose. What was constitutionally prohibited was neither.

The 9th circuit ruling imposes neither. And THAT is the problem with it. There's a constitutional right to keep AND bear. And the 9th circuit ruled that there was no right to bear concealed, while not striking down the prohibition on carrying openly, and in so doing, has denied the right to bear, entirely.

It might survive Supreme court review, for the moment, because the four 'liberal' justices are determined to erase the right entirely. It would not have survived review by the Court prior to Scalia's death, and hopefully it will not survive review by the Court after Trump replaces him.
 

As noted here, when Scalia was still alive a range of regulations were upheld including "may issue" permits, even though it only takes four to take a case. So, maybe "the four liberal" justices aren't the only ones involved here? For instance, only Scalia and Thomas wanted to take a case involving ownership in the home of certain guns.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/why-the-supreme-court-wont-restrict-gun-rights/485810/

The article argues that overruling Heller would likely at this point not be something deemed necessary, since it specifically allows a range of regulations. Heller and McDonald did not involve a total ban; the liberals also recently went along with a per curiam that sent back for further review (upholding Heller as good law in the process) a MA Supreme Court ruling that upheld a stun gun ban. So, "entirely" has a special meaning, apparently.

If the liberals were so gung ho to "erase the right entirely," strange they did that. They could have simply by a 4-4 vote let the ruling stand. But, they didn't. They specifically joined a per curiam that UPHELD Heller as precedent after years of silence. A D.C. court recently even used the opinion as a mild hint that there is a right to bear arms in public places. Those who are gung ho to "erase" the right acted strangely there.

It is far from clear to me that Kagan, Scalia's old hunting buddy, wants to overrule Heller (which specifically gave a list, which it said wasn't even comprehensive, of acceptable gun regulations). Garland either. If Republicans want to block someone who has a record of respecting precedent here so that Hillary (dark music) Clinton can appoint someone else, I guess, that's their right.

Anyway, the issue of the breadth of the constitutional right to carry in public places (various laws put limits, including only allowing certain groups to get one) is shall we say open at this moment until SCOTUS decides. EVEN IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT.

We do not reach the question whether the Second Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public, such as open carry. That question was left open by the Supreme Court in Heller, and we have no need to answer it here. Because Plaintiffs challenge only policies governing concealed carry, we reach only the question whether the Second Amendment protects, in any degee, the ability to carry concealed firearms in public.

Federal courts generally are not supposed to "impose" advisory opinions regarding things not sought out, especially if the result is overriding democratically passed legislation. OTOH, conservatives do like to expand governmental power in certain ways.

Again:

We hold only that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.

If parties wishes to challenge the law more broadly, they have every right to do so.
 

The plaintiffs made an avoidable mistake by failing to challenge both California's effective prohibition on concealed carry and the express prohibition of open carry at the same time.

Now California will continue to violate the Second Amendment until a new case can work its way through the courts.
 

SPAM I AM!'s:

"Now California will continue to violate the Second Amendment until a new case can work its way through the courts."

jogged my memory to shortly after Heller (5-4) and he informed us (bragged) that he had at the ready a 2nd A case to go beyond the home in self defense. As is often the case with SPAM I AM! there was no follow up (or, as Mark Tushnet channeling Gertrude Stein would say: "Oakland") Who was it that said: "A memory is a good thing not to waste."?
 

This morning I was listening to The NewYorker Radio Hour and its opening put a litle wind in my sails. (No, wise guy, itwas no I breaking wind.) It was a public debate over Cats versus Dogs, with the audience as the jury and David Remnick as the judge. The debaters were "celebrities" whose names I cannot recall except for Malcolm Gladwell. (In the immortal words of Duke Ellington I "Don't Get Around Much Anymore.") It came out that dog people are Democrats and cat people are Republicans, which was a surprise to me as a cat person (with the scars to show for it). One of the cat debaters referenced Tom Jones' big hit of yesteryear if adapted to a dog motif - and pointed to James Bond (aka 007ish) in a flick retitled "Doggygalore." I won't reveal the jury's decision by applause but will mention that Remnick is a Democrat. (This brings to mind my earlier doldrums about judge recusals.

Our cat was around for 17 human years. If I were to be judged politically by my cat, I would be a libertarian (it's okay to bite the hand that feeds you)) - but I'm not.
 

Shag:

On the carry case you recall, the DA backed off after I discussed filing a Heller motion and my client agreed to a deferred sentence without a conviction on an unrelated charge.

Carry really is not a problem in the Colorado free state.
 

How does the "Colorado free state" differ from the "Mile High State (of mind)"? NH's license plate motto "LIVE FREE OR DIE" presents an alternative.

But SPAM I AM! seemed to have such vigor back immediately pos-Heller (5-4) and many years later informs us it was merely a municipal plea deal and not an expansion of Heller (5-4).
 

The Democrat attorneys and pundits claiming that the prosecutor would have to prove some mal intent either have not read the law or are lying for public political consumption."

once again engages in group defamation. And we get the legal views of this one time Army intel officer who after an illustrious (self-proclaimed) military career achieved the acme of his legal career in CO providing legal defenses to his alleged drunk clients in criminal DUI proceedings, claiming to be the top DUI legal dog atop his small mountaintop community. Perhaps one has to be under the influence of legal recreational Ganja in his Mile High State (of mind) to acceptin lịch tết 2017
mẫu lịch tết 2017 đẹp
in lịch để bàn chữ a
in lịch để bàn chữ M
In lịch lò xo 7 tờ
báo giá lịch tết
thiết kế lịch độc quyền


in kẹp file
 

Shag:

I am not the ACLU. My first priority is the client. Far better a deferral leading to a dismissal than a felony conviction followed by an appeal.
 

Brett, what I was trying to get at is the letter from the IG itself since I wasn't confident in how the WT would report it. I tracked it down via Foxnews which broke the story and then NBC, and there seemed to be some issues with it, as explained here:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/01/20/nuclear-bombshell-right-wing-media-hype-old-dis/208072

 

"Finally, the other candidate has committed several hundred misdemeanor and felony crimes"

That's not been shown.

"he other candidate and her husband have amassed a personal fortune of over $100 million dollars from "speaking fees" paid by various foreign governments and corporations while the candidate was in or running for public office. "

But you've long assured us money in politics is not concerning.
 

"because the four 'liberal' justices are determined to erase the right entirely"

I doubt they'd overrule Heller or MacDonald explicitly, they'd just argue, as has been argued before, that the right to keep and carry does not extend into public but is rather home based.

I think that's a fair reading of it too. It seems fairly obvious that the 2nd was thinking of something like the attempt to disarm the people of Lexington and Concord, not setting out to protect a right to individual self defense.
 

The "home based" idea is interesting especially if one supports a right to privacy, which has a special role in the home. Or, as a dissent to an earlier ruling upholding a handgun ban said: "the fundamental right to privacy and the fundamental right to defend the home against unlawful intrusion within the parameters of the criminal law."

http://openjurist.org/695/f2d/261/quilici-v-village-of-morton-grove

I think there is a personal right to self-defense (I wouldn't fix it in the 2A) and it is not merely in the home. Once outside the home, there would be a greater power to regulate & D.C. v. Heller already spoke of "sensitive places."

And, a right to own a licensed firearm that you can carry around for self-defense is different from some general right to carry around AR-15s in public places too. The right to do so while in militia service, of course, would be a different matter.

 

Mr. W:

People spending their own money to communicate their own political speech is not at all concerning. Instead, it is a core individual liberty.

People paying a public official and her spouse over $100 million to give speeches is reasonable suspicion to start a felony bribery investigation.

Your voting for that public official is facilitating corruption.
 

Mr. W: I doubt they'd overrule Heller or MacDonald explicitly, they'd just argue, as has been argued before, that the right to keep and carry does not extend into public but is rather home based. I think that's a fair reading of it too. It seems fairly obvious that the 2nd was thinking of something like the attempt to disarm the people of Lexington and Concord, not setting out to protect a right to individual self defense.

You may have stumbled dangerously close to a libertarian reality there.

The primary intent of the armed revolutionaries who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment was indeed to preserve the people' ability to wage an armed revolution against a tyrannical national government, like the folks at Lexington and Concord.

This is a form of collective self defense against the government exercised by armed individuals.

BTW, an armed revolution generally requires the revolutionaries to bear arms in common spaces outside of their homes.
 

Indeed SPAM I AM! had an obligation to act on behalf of his client shortly post-Heller (5-4). My critique is not of what he did for his client but was of his using this Blog in the heat following Heller (5-4) to brag of a post-Heller (5-4) case that he had at the ready to extend Heller (5-4) beyond home/self defense. This was part of SPAM I AM!'s efforts at self-promotion as an attorney (and and other times as a military expert, an economist, a historian, or whatever else he may have thought would advance his desire for esteem) in his challenges at this Blog that for the most part have failed. SPAM I AM! is utterly shameless.
 

Shag:

Self promotion? With whom?

:::chuckle:::

None of my clients and the vast majority of readers do not even know this blawg exists.
 

SPAM I AM! with this:

"The primary intent of the armed revolutionaries who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment was indeed to preserve the people' ability to wage an armed revolution against a tyrannical national government, like the folks at Lexington and Concord."

is a cue to Sam Cooke's "Don't know much about history ...." The Revolution ended in 1783. Congress enacted the first 10 Amendments in September of 1789. How many of those members of Congress were "armed revolutionaries? These amendments were ratified in December of 1791. Perhaps SPAM I AM! can point to the records of that Congress or the ratification records demonstrating such "primary intent" of "armed revolutionaries." The records are quite sparse. The 2nd A DID NOT amed the militia clauses in the 1787 Constitution or the domestic violence clause to challenge rebellions by the central government. The 2nd A tied into the militia clauses. Shay's Rebellion (1786-7) here in my home state of MA was on the minds of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in including the militia and domestic violence clauses.

SPAM I AM! spouts off on armed revolution at this Blog from time to time as an alternative to dysfunctional government. But the History of the Constitution and especially the 2nd A do not support this.