Don Jr. tweet picture of judge's daughter.

[AUFAN78 4,162]

On 4/5/2023 at 8:07 AM, TitanTiger said:

First Ladies always get brought up.  Have been since at least Jacqueline Kennedy.

Trump's kids worked with him in his administration. 

This judge's kid is not relevant to the case before him.

Great. That certainly makes it okay. 

Totally irrelevant IMO.

You don't have to believe political bias runs in a family if you choose not to. IDC 

[AUFAN78 4,162]

On 4/5/2023 at 8:40 AM, TitanTiger said:

By this standard, literally every judge would have "bias."  A history of voting Republican.  A family member who worked for a Democrat.  A donation to a conservative candidate.  Being appointed by a liberal politician.  If this is how we're going to try and smear a judge and discredit a court case, no one is immune.  Will we have to change the standard so that Republican politicians who are charged with crimes only appear before Republican judges and vice versa with Democrats?

Just stop it.  It's amateur hour argumentation that should be beneath a critically thinking adult.

I certainly believe judges have bias. Why else would one want to pack a court? Is it not to even the playing field? Nothing to do with perceived bias eh? 

Amateur hour indeed. 

 

[TitanTiger 21,511]

4 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Great. That certainly makes it okay. 

Totally irrelevant IMO.

You don't have to believe political bias runs in a family if you choose not to. IDC 

It makes it different.  When you work in an administration, and you're an adult, you're open to being discussed in the news.  If you're First Lady, scrutiny comes with the territory.  Such was the case for Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka.  To the degree they involved themselves in Trump's presidential campaigns, worked in his administration, or served as mouthpieces defending him on media platforms, they are fair game.  This is completely normal and understood by regular people.

Minor children should be off limits whether it's Barron Trump, the Obama or Bush girls, Chelsea Clinton or whoever.

Adult children who do not work for the administration or in the office can be a grey area.  In the judge's case, there was no need in this case to post her photo.  She doesn't work for her father or his office/department.  She has no relevance to him being assigned this case.  Insinuating that her being involved for a few months in a Democratic presidential campaign brings his ability to properly and fairly apply the law to the cases before him is grasping at straws.  And as someone else mentioned, it fails to take into account how often the political beliefs of adult children diverge from that of their parents.  It's pure intellectual laziness.

[TitanTiger 21,511]

2 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I certainly believe judges have bias. Why else would one want to pack a court? Is it not to even the playing field? Nothing to do with perceived bias eh? 

Amateur hour indeed.

Humans have biases.  They also have worldviews and philosophies as it pertains to government and law (which don't always easily map with current political categories). 

What we expect from them, whether appointed by a Democrat or a Republican is to apply the law fairly and to do their level best to remove their personal feelings from a case in making a decision.  And we don't just lazily default to "bias" any time they give a ruling we don't like.  We especially don't do that on the basis of a family member having political leanings.  That's just a shortcut around having to form a coherent counterargument or to try and tint everyone's view of the proceedings so if things don't go your preferred way, you have a pre-loaded excuse.

[AUFAN78 4,162]

22 hours ago, homersapien said:

How about the wife of a judge? 

Seems to me that would be even more relevant than an adult child.

Yes, obviously she has bias.

[AUFAN78 4,162]

20 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Of course, always a bit disappointed in myself when trying to defend a Trump. It is a tough thing to do.
 

 

Pointing out hypocrisy and bias is not supporting anything other than truth. No apology needed.

[AUFAN78 4,162]

14 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Some of you need to get it out of your head that it matters if a judge is affiliated with one party or the other.  A judge is tasked with being impartial and applying the law.  If either side whines like this every time they go before a judge, the system is then a joke.  The other political party is not your enemy.  They are not a danger to the country.

Why are democrats in congress calling to pack the Supreme Court? 

[aubiefifty 18,430]

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

Why are democrats in congress calling to pack the Supreme Court? 

because you guys have been doing the same so the dirty commie will not take over the nation? you guys did some shady stuff and broke a unwritten law or gentlemens agreement because the right wanted abortion outlawed. they do not care aqbout fair play of the law when it comes to the right.

[TitanTiger 21,511]

6 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Why are democrats in congress calling to pack the Supreme Court? 

Perhaps because of ethically shady stuff like refusing to allow Merrick Garland to be voted on for 8 months (during an election year) so a Republican president could replace Scalia - then rushing a vote (also in an election year) to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Amy Coney Barrett?  I mean, I may agree more with judges like Gorsuch or Barrett than Garland or whoever Biden might have nominated, but I can't exactly blame Democrats for feeling like Republicans already manipulated the process to "pack" the court.

Look, no one is saying judges don't have judicial philosophies that lean this or that way.  What we are saying is that it's lazy ass bull**** to point to a judge's daughter's political views and suggest that he won't give Trump a fair trial because of it.

[aubaseball 2,894]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

It's a stretch to be dismissive of a judge's ability to apply the law correctly because of such considerations.  The mere fact that he has a daughter that worked on a Democrat campaign is enough for you to throw shade on the entire case.  It's lazy.

Should we hold as suspect every ruling that any Trump-appointed judge issues, particularly if it involves a Democrat or a conflict between a conservative or a progressive view on a matter, simply because Trump appointed them and they have conservative connections?  Of course not.  Neither should we just recycle right-wing talking points on this judge just because he's assigned to a case involving Lord Trump and hasn't summarily dismissed it already.

This particular judge has been assigned several cases involving Trump in the past.   Will he be fair and apply the law? Let’s hope so.   And as far as having biases, did you not see that the Wisconsin Supreme Court just “ELECTED”  a member to the court.   Do you not think see will view things through the lens of democratic leaning principles?   If you don’t, I don’t know what to say to you.   And as far as everyone on here that has a different opinion than you or others, you all go to the same tired ole fall back and claim everyone is for Trump.   It’s a stupid counterpoint and lame.   
 

[aubaseball 2,894]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Perhaps because of ethically shady stuff like refusing to allow Merrick Garland to be voted on for 8 months (during an election year) so a Republican president could replace Scalia - then rushing a vote (also in an election year) to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Amy Coney Barrett?  I mean, I may agree more with judges like Gorsuch or Barrett than Garland or whoever Biden might have nominated, but I can't exactly blame Democrats for feeling like Republicans already manipulated the process to "pack" the court.

Look, no one is saying judges don't have judicial philosophies that lean this or that way.  What we are saying is that it's lazy ass bull**** to point to a judge's daughter's political views and suggest that he won't give Trump a fair trial because of it.

I think it’s a known fact that this judge is a democratic donor

[aubiefifty 18,430]

26 minutes ago, Potatooooooes!! said:

Why do so many articles appear black on dark mode. I can't read anything except hyperlinks since they're in blue. Am I doing something wrong?

 

1 minute ago, aubaseball said:

This particular judge has been assigned several cases involving Trump in the past.   Will he be fair and apply the law? Let’s hope so.   And as far as having biases, did you not see that the Wisconsin Supreme Court just “ELECTED”  a member to the court.   Do you not think see will view things through the lens of democratic leaning principles?   If you don’t, I don’t know what to say to you.   And as far as everyone on here that has a different opinion than you or others, you all go to the same tired ole fall back and claim everyone is for Trump.   It’s a stupid counterpoint and lame.   
 

so tell me this miss cleo. who on the right could we trust to do the right thing concerning trump? this is not a troll this is serious. see how that works?

[aubiefifty 18,430]

1 minute ago, aubaseball said:

I think it’s a known fact that this judge is a democratic donor

thank god he is or you guys would have a repuke letting him get away with murder. again fact and not a troll.

[AUFAN78 4,162]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Look, no one is saying judges don't have judicial philosophies that lean this or that way. 

Well, they actually have, but that statement pretty much sums up my thoughts.  

[AUFAN78 4,162]

6 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

I think it’s a known fact that this judge is a democratic donor

Not to mention family social media posts that have been taken down. There is a pattern here.

[aubaseball 2,894]

1 minute ago, aubiefifty said:

 

so tell me this miss cleo. who on the right could we trust to do the right thing concerning trump? this is not a troll this is serious. see how that works?

 

Just now, aubiefifty said:

thank god he is or you guys would have a repuke letting him get away with murder. again fact and not a troll.

You obviously have been hitting it hard this morning.  This last thing doesn’t even make sense.   It’s a stupid indictment dude.  If you would put away Trump derangement syndrome and just look at the charge and who the players involved are it would make a whole lot more sense to you.   This particular case is about nothing.   If there is something that is meaningful and can be proven without a reasonable doubt against Trump, then go for it.   But this case is stupid.   

[aubiefifty 18,430]

Just now, aubaseball said:

 

You obviously have been hitting it hard this morning.  This last thing doesn’t even make sense.   It’s a stupid indictment dude.  If you would put away Trump derangement syndrome and just look at the charge and who the players involved are it would make a whole lot more sense to you.   This particular case is about nothing.   If there is something that is meaningful and can be proven without a reasonable doubt against Trump, then go for it.   But this case is stupid.   

if me or you lie under oath we would be jailed and or pay a huge fine. he is also accuded of  paying the ho off with campaign funds which is a nono. nice try. if it was a dem you would LOVE it so do not lie dude..............

[aubiefifty 18,430]

3 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

 

You obviously have been hitting it hard this morning.  This last thing doesn’t even make sense.   It’s a stupid indictment dude.  If you would put away Trump derangement syndrome and just look at the charge and who the players involved are it would make a whole lot more sense to you.   This particular case is about nothing.   If there is something that is meaningful and can be proven without a reasonable doubt against Trump, then go for it.   But this case is stupid.   

i hate to burst your bubble but i rarely ever get high all day long or even every single day.

[TitanTiger 21,511]

14 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

I think it’s a known fact that this judge is a democratic donor

So?

[TitanTiger 21,511]

17 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

This particular judge has been assigned several cases involving Trump in the past.   Will he be fair and apply the law? Let’s hope so.   And as far as having biases, did you not see that the Wisconsin Supreme Court just “ELECTED”  a member to the court.   Do you not think see will view things through the lens of democratic leaning principles?   If you don’t, I don’t know what to say to you.   And as far as everyone on here that has a different opinion than you or others, you all go to the same tired ole fall back and claim everyone is for Trump.   It’s a stupid counterpoint and lame.   
 

I've never denied that judges may have philosophical leanings.  What I'm saying is, automatically calling into question their ability to rightly and fairly apply the law regardless of their personal feelings is lazy argumentation.  And calling them into question over what their adult child does or doesn't do is even worse.

[aubaseball 2,894]

1 minute ago, aubiefifty said:

if me or you lie under oath we would be jailed and or pay a huge fine. he is also accuded of  paying the ho off with campaign funds which is a nono. nice try. if it was a dem you would LOVE it so do not lie dude..............

No he isn’t.  The Federal Election Commission has already investigated and said nothing was there on that.   Now you are the one lying.   The Clintons and Bidens are the worlds worst when it comes to bad recordings keeping, which in case you forgot to read the charges, is what this guy is going after Trump on.   And you have me  confused, I say go after all of them if you’re going to after any of them.   There’s the difference between you and me.   End of story.   You’re the one that will let all the shady shi$ that the others have gotten away with.  

[Leftfield 3,412]

Would also point out that there is a big difference between applying law in a criminal case vs. interpreting issues like abortion and gun control. The former simply rules actions against existing statutes, while the latter discusses the validity of the statutes themselves. Certainly there can still be bias in the former, but it is much easier to separate the bias in that situation.

Having said that, I do think it was a very poor decision for Judge Merchan to contribute to a political campaign, the small amount notwithstanding. I don't see how he couldn't anticipate that being a conflict of interest. In my opinion, the stakes in this case are too high, the optics too poor, and the Trumpets can use this as proof that Trump can't get a fair trial. He should recuse himself. 

Edited April 6, 2023 by Leftfield

[Leftfield 3,412]

2 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

The Federal Election Commission has already investigated and said nothing was there on that.  

I don't think that's correct. Just because they didn't attempt to prosecute does not mean they didn't find anything. By all accounts there was a case there, but the Justice Department did not pursue it further.

[aubaseball 2,894]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I've never denied that judges may have philosophical leanings.  What I'm saying is, automatically calling into question their ability to rightly and fairly apply the law regardless of their personal feelings is lazy argumentation.  And calling them into question over what their adult child does or doesn't do is even worse.

You are the person that brought this up. I and others are pointing out that this is who this person is.   Nothing more for me.  Let’s hope he is impartial and fair.  I honestly don’t see why this is even in court, but you and both know why.   It’s only because it’s DT.   If this was anyone else, it wouldn’t even come to this or even matter.   

[TitanTiger 21,511]

1 minute ago, aubaseball said:

You are the person that brought this up. I and others are pointing out that this is who this person is.   Nothing more for me.  Let’s hope he is impartial and fair.  I honestly don’t see why this is even in court, but you and both know why.   It’s only because it’s DT.   If this was anyone else, it wouldn’t even come to this or even matter.   

No, the original post that posted the link to the story at Breitbart brought it up.  It's literally in the title of the thread.  Pay attention.