Archaic law may allow disclosure of Trump's tax returns

jem said:
let me say you are the first person I have read here that actually gave a good argument to support something anti Trump. You have changed my mind on that issue. That was one of the few legit arguments I have seen anyone make against trump

for instance... Trump being a racist is bullshit. the only legit argument is about the judge... and that argument is weak.

If I were defending someone being sued by a hispanic plaintiff I would file a motion to ask a that judge who was a member of La Raza to recuse himself or herself. Just as if I were defending against a white guy and the judge were a member of a white power group.

Judges are supposed avoid even the appearance of bias.
More...

Thank you, I appreciate the compliment.

I think it's dangerous to call a judge (any judge) biased without explicit proof that they are using their beliefs about one issue to cloud their judgement on another. It's a high standard and Trump should provide proof. Affiliations to certain groups don't mean the judge is biased when practicing law in his courtroom.

Remember the Stanford swimmer rape case? It's pretty hard to not feel the judge there was not biased as the kid's background was similar to the judge's (both Stanford grads and collegiate athletes and same race). However, the state's judicial oversight panel didn't feel there was bias in that trial. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-rape-judge-idUSKBN14828F
 
I believe you are mixing up the standards. The standard is that in the interest of justice a judge should avoid the appearance of bias. But, here is a Caveat This is not an area of expertise or research of mine. So you are free to look up the cases yourself.
----

you cited a post trial review by a board utilizing a much different standard. Your board used a clear and convincing standard. And that is not the standard I have seen the U.S. supreme court set.

here is the first article I found at the top of google. It shows the proper standard. (When the citation says U.S. --- that means U.S. Supreme Ct.)

http://wyselaw.com/index.php/2015/11/08/judicial-bias-standards/

“[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process…ndeed, the legitimacy of the Judicial Branch ultimately depends on its reputation for impartiality and nonpartisanship. This most basic tenet of our judicial system helps to ensure both litigants’ and the public’s confidence that each case has been fairly adjudicated by a neutral and detached arbiter. An appearance of impropriety, regardless of whether such impropriety is actually present or proven, erodes that confidence and weakens our system of justice.”
Id., at 1309 (internal citations omitted). “To safeguard the right to a fair trial, the Constitution requires judicial recusal in cases where ‘the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision maker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.’” Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47(1975).


the article started with this...


In Caperton v. A.T. Massey, 556 U.S. 868 (2009) the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “[t]he Due Process Clause incorporated the common-law rule requiring recusal when a judge has ‘a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest’ in a case … however, this Court has also identified additional instances which, as an objective matter, require recusal where ‘the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision maker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.” Id., at 876-877. “The Court asks not whether the judge is actually, subjectively biased, but whether the average judge in his position is likely to be neutral, or whether there is an unconstitutional potential for bias.” Id., at 877. “[T]he Court’s precedents on judicial bias focus on the appearance of and potential for bias, not actual, proven bias. Due process thus mandates a ‘stringent rule’ for judicial conduct, and requires recusal even of judges who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally if the risk of bias is too high.” Id. (internal citations omitted).



newwurldmn said:
Thank you, I appreciate the compliment.

I think it's dangerous to call a judge (any judge) biased without explicit proof that they are using their beliefs about one issue to cloud their judgement on another. It's a high standard and Trump should provide proof. Affiliations to certain groups don't mean the judge is biased when practicing law in his courtroom.

Remember the Stanford swimmer rape case? It's pretty hard to not feel the judge there was not biased as the kid's background was similar to the judge's (both Stanford grads and collegiate athletes and same race). However, the state's judicial oversight panel didn't feel there was bias in that trial. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-rape-judge-idUSKBN14828F
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top