Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
So you "DONT truly KNOW the intent"
You "DONT KNOW anyone that was in that court" so you DONT KNOW if his actions hurt anyone.
Since you DONT KNOW who he tossed out...you DONT KNOW if they would have benefited from his lectures.
And you DONT KNOW if any laws were broken or laws under which you could sue for discrimination.
But YOU KNOW the judge is a racist.
|
Well, I'm not going to call the judge a liar, so I must defer to what he states was his intent.
No, I don't know anyone personally, but I know and have been going by the report (and as far as I can tell it is a true report).
Again, the report made it very clear who he tossed out and whom he though would benefit.... This came from the judge himself.
Laws don't have to be broken in order to sue. One can sue just about anyone in this country, it's all a matter of finding the right attorney who will take your case.
Ethics aren't laws in most cases, they are rules governing your profession. You get punished for ethical violations from the board of your profession (like mine would be the chemical dependency board).... those penalties can be minor from fines to major like losing licenses. Judges, I am sure have ethics that govern them and I'm sure a judicial review that watches them. Just as lawyers do.
If judges do not, may I recommend that maybe we get some in place.... it may also cut down on he discriminatory sentencing we hear about.
But you focus on the 1st argument.... not the second. So I assume, you believe, it is ok for ANY judge to throw out anyone and keep a select group only in his courtroom?
You do right?
If a white/Hispanic/gay/Jewish/Pagan/etc judge did this it would be ok with you????? Right? You're not just saying this is acceptable because this judge is black right?
I mean if the OP had been a white judge doing this and I ranted how racist and wrong I believed it to be (which I would have)...... you'd still hound me for 6 pages telling me it was ok?
Right?
Now, then we're clear on the superficial argument. And there is no underbellied argument because ALL judges have the right to select groups to have "talks" with in their courtroom and can kick everyone else out, in your opinion.
Cool. That was easy.
I have my opinion you have yours. That didn't really need to go 6 pages.
Unless you truly believe that one group is allowed to do this and the other can't. then you need to defend that with more than "It's a culture thing and blacks understand and can do this but whites can't." Then we have that issue to deal with.... the one no one wants to deal with.
I guess I was truly pwned there..... how dare I have standards and expect my government and judges to act in ethical ways.