06 Jul 2016

George Will Comes to His Senses

Trump 90 Comments

…and leaves the GOP.

But, not to be a sore winner here, I don’t think one of his reasons makes sense.

According to the press accounts, one of the last straws for Will was Trump’s “racist” comments about the “Mexican” judge who couldn’t be fair in his trial, because of Trump’s policies/remarks about Mexicans.

OK, but George Will earlier had written this:

Romney lost 73 percent of the Hispanic vote; Trump is viewed unfavorably by 82­ percent of Hispanics and very unfavorably by 62 percent. Trump probably will receive significantly less than Romney’s ruinous 27 percent of this vote. And because of demographic trends and Trump’s motivating policies and insults, Hispanic turnout probably will be significantly larger than in 2012, as the white percentage of the electorate continues to shrink.

Now look at what I put in bold. If I didn’t know any better, I’d say that George Will was saying that Hispanic people would predictably act in a certain way on something as important as voting for president, because of Trump’s insults of Hispanic people.

Is George Will allowed to associate with himself, after writing such a racist comment in a major newspaper?

P.S. For those who will say, “Gee Bob, why do you and your crew love Trump so much?” check out this tweet. Does it look like we’re pining for a spot in the Trump Administration?

90 Responses to “George Will Comes to His Senses”

  1. Keshav Srinivasan says:

    I think it’s worth quoting a comment I left on Gene Callahan’s blog on the Mexican judge issue:
    gene-callahan.blogspot.com/2016/06/mexican-american-support-for-trump.html

    “Gene, most of the people I’ve seen criticizing Trump’s comments about the judge basically make the following argument: “Donald, if you’re saying that a judge will treat you unfairly simply on the basis of the fact that he is of Mexican heritage, then there are two possibilities. Either you are conceding that your statements and policies are so hurtful to Hispanics that you cannot possibly expect fair treatment from a Hispanic judge, which says something awfully bad about you. Or you are saying that there is some other reason why you don’t want a judge of Mexican descent, which opens the door to the possibility that you don’t want a Hispanic judge for racist reasons.” Now you may disagree with their argument, but that’s the argument they’re making.”

    • Gene Callahan says:

      Well, Keshav, if you make a ridiculous argument once, there is no reason not to make it twice!!

      Of course, Trump never made any argument that this judge wouldn’t judge him fairly “simply on the basis of the fact that he is of Mexican heritage.” (Wow, what a wordy way to say that!) He said, “This judge IS NOT judging me fairly: perhaps, since he is Mexican(-American), and is a member of a group that advocates for illegal Mexican immigrants, that is why.”

      There really is no “argument” the people forwarding this meme are making: they are embracing the Clinton “Trump is a racist” persuasion tactic, without any “argument” at all.

      • Keshav Srinivasan says:

        Gene, Trump did not simply say, “This judge is biased against me, so he should recuse himself. And if I were to guess, the source of his bias is probably that he’s of Mexican heritage.” He made statements like, “He’s a Mexican and I’m building a wall, so obviously he should recuse himself.” And that is the sort of statement that opens him up to the criticism I outlined above: “Donald, if you really think that your statements and policies are of such a kind that the fact that someone is of Mexican heritage is reason alone to require that they recuse themselves, then you are conceding something awfully bad about your statements and policies. Or if that’s not what you really think, then it suggests that you have other, possibly racist, reasons for not wanting Mexican-American judges.”

        And it’s not simply a persuasion tactic: I expect that the vast majority of people making this argument would say under truth serum that Trump’s Mexican judge comment implies that he’s a racist.

        • Dan says:

          ““Donald, if you really think that your statements and policies are of such a kind that the fact that someone is of Mexican heritage is reason alone to require that they recuse themselves, then you are conceding something awfully bad about your statements and policies.”

          Why? He could believe that his statements are perfectly fine, and at the same time believe that this judge won’t judge him fairly based on the comments. Those aren’t mutually exclusive.

        • Gene Callahan says:

          ” I expect that the vast majority of people making this argument would say under truth serum that Trump’s Mexican judge comment implies that he’s a racist.”

          No doubt: they’ve fallen for the Clinton persuasion tactic, and sincerely believe it! But we might note first off that “Mexican” is not a race, and that Mexico in fact contains people of all races, hey?

          • Keshav Srinivasan says:

            Gene, if a comment was prejudiced against Mexicans, I think it would almost always be racist. For instance, suppose someone said “All Mexicans are rapists.” (Note: I’m not accusing Trump of saying that.) In that case, I think it is a reasonable inference to say that they are racist against Hispanics, don’t you?

            • Tel says:

              Last I checked Mexican was a nationality, not a biological race… but anyway Trump never made a comment “prejudiced against Mexicans”. He made a comment about illegal immigration in as much as Mexico is not sending their best.

              This of course should be obvious, no country sends away their best and brightest.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                “Last I checked Mexican was a nationality, not a biological race…” Yes, and my comment fully took that into account. That is why I said that a comment which is prejudiced against Mexicans is almost always racist against Hispanics.

                “This of course should be obvious, no country sends away their best and brightest.” By the way, I should note that Trump means the word “sends” literally; he later clarified that he was talking about the Mexican government sending their criminals here to avoid the cost of incarceration.

            • Gene Callahan says:

              “Gene, if a comment was prejudiced against Mexicans, I think it would almost always be racist. ”

              1) Mexico is not a race!!!!

              2) Trump has never said anything against “Mexicans.” What he in fact said was that Mexican ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS tend not to be the best people from Mexico. And I think it is pretty obvious that this is correct: the Mexicans who do the best “in society” are:
              1) Already doing fine in Mexico, and don’t need to leave; OR
              2) Have a skill that can gain them legal entry to the US.

              Do you really believe that the illegal immigrant population of Mexico is the “cream of the crop”? How in the world is it “anti-Mexican” to note that the people willing to risk death and imprisonment to get out of Mexico are probably not the “high achievers” there?

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                “Mexico is not a race!!!!” Yes, and I didn’t say it was a race; if I thought it was a race I would not have said “I think” and “almost always”, I would just be asserting a tautology. I was saying that if someone were to make a comment which was prejudiced against Mexicans, such a comment would almost always be racist against Hispanics.

                “Trump has never said anything against “Mexicans.”” Well, we obviously we disagree about the judge comment. But in regard to the illegal immigrants comment; if Trump had simply said that illegal immigrants tend not to be the cream of the crop of the Mexican population and left it at that, I don’t think he would have lost sponsors. But he went further and made it sound like most illegal immigrants are rapists. (“And some, I assume, are good people.”) That is the part that people found so objectionable.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                Keshav, just so you don’t think I’m being unreasonable, let me state that I am NOT basing my defense on Mexico (or Islam) not being a race, and hence someone who says bigoted things about Mexicans or Muslims not being racist.

                I get what Scott Adams / Gene are saying on that score, but I think that is needless quibbling.

                In contrast, I am quite serious, and think it’s important, to say that someone who says, “A guy whose background is from Mexico might not be fair in judging me, since I’ve said things that anger a lot of Mexicans” is thereby saying something racist.

    • Major.Freedom says:

      Keshav that is a false dichotomy. There is the third possibility that the judge is in fact biased becsuse he, the judge, is racist.

  2. RL Styne says:

    The fact that you constantly have to add this PC crap about not liking Trump is evidence that identity politics has completely infiltrated the Libertarian and Conservative political factions in the US this election year. True, it’s always been there for the Beltwaytarians, but it’s really hilarious to watch these people shriek about Trump’s racist comments when they say virtually nothing at all about Hillary’s war record.

    Exactly how is it that a guy who says mean things about Mexicans is categorically more horrific than a woman who vigorously agitated for the Iraq war and several since while sitting in positions of power (Senate, Sec’y of State)? Isn’t war supposed to be literally the worst thing ever? How is fire bombing children in Iraq not racist?

    It makes literally no sense from a (consistent, logical, sensible) libertarian POV, so I just chock this particular phenomenon up to moral posturing and the (sad) desensitization to war people have gone through over the last 16 years.

    • Gene Callahan says:

      In fact, nothing in Trump’s campaign has ever mentioned race at all. “Mexican” is not a race, nor is “Muslim.” The “racism” meme is simply the most effective marketing mechanism the anti-Trump people could find.

      • John says:

        This seems like a very technical argument. Trump has, at the least, repeatedly engaged in national origin and religious discrimination (Mexico, Islam), which is closely akin to racism. Also, indicating that persons of a certain race or national origin predictably will decline to vote for a racist does not strike me as analogous to noting that a claim that a judge cannot perform the fundamentals of his job — being impartial — because one of the litigants has insulted his indirect national origin is a racial trope, i.e., “these people are all much more concerned with their race/religion than with maintaining the proper ethical standards of their work.” This notion often arose with regard to Jews and Catholcs in the first half of the 20th century.

        Finally, on an unrelated note, the idea that the FBI declined to indict Hillary Clinton because Janes Coney was afraid of physical retribution from the Clintons is tinfoil hat stuff, and doesn’t belong on this blog.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          John wrote:

          Also, indicating that persons of a certain race or national origin predictably will decline to vote for a racist does not strike me as analogous to noting that a claim that a judge cannot perform the fundamentals of his job — being impartial — because one of the litigants has insulted his indirect national origin is a racial trope, i.e., “these people are all much more concerned with their race/religion than with maintaining the proper ethical standards of their work.” This notion often arose with regard to Jews and Catholcs in the first half of the 20th century.

          John, since this was the whole point of my post, can you elaborate? Unless you’re saying that voting for president is a trivial thing like picking a flavor of ice cream, as opposed to something important like “doing your job,” then I don’t see how this works. (And I don’t think George Will thinks voting is irrelevant and trivial, otherwise he wouldn’t make such a big deal about telling people he’s leaving the Republican Party.)

          • Keshav Srinivasan says:

            Bob, in your capacity as a judge, you’re not supposed to let your political preferences concerning the defendant sway you. If you believe that Trump has made racist comments against your ethnicity, that should not influence your decision. But as a voter, it’s absolutely fine if you choose to vote against Trump because you believe that he’s made racist comments against your ethnicity.

            To take a more extreme example, a black judge would be expected to treat a KKK member fairly, but a black voter can certainly vote against someone because they’re a KKK member.

            • Bob Murphy says:

              Keshav wrote:

              Bob, in your capacity as a judge, you’re not supposed to let your political preferences concerning the defendant sway you. If you believe that Trump has made racist comments against your ethnicity, that should not influence your decision.

              Right. No one is denying that Trump said the judge wasn’t going to do a good job.

              What I am denying is that he was a racist for saying so.

              He wasn’t saying, “Mexicans are lazy, and I therefore think this judge won’t do a good job.”

              He was saying something that is perfectly plausible–something so plausible that George Will himself cited it–namely that people who are Hispanic might change their behavior in light of Trump’s stated policies towards Mexico.

              Am I anti-man if I say that the FBI director was biased in his Clinton ruling? Would you say, “Bob, FBI directors aren’t supposed to be influenced by political power etc. So it was very rude and discriminatory for you to suggest such a thing.” ?

              • John says:

                I think Keshav basically answered the way I would have. To take an example, hypothetically if I as a black man decide I will not vote for someone professing racist views because of concern about what he or she might do if in power, that is not a racist decision, so much as it is a weighing of the candidate’s positions with an eye toward what is best for me and people I am worried about.
                Pointing out that rational members of an ethnic group would likely behave this way is not racist either, as far as I can tell. Obviously, it is not suggesting something pejorative about a person based on race.

                But if I accuse a judge of failing in his or her duty to be impartial because of his or her race or national origin, that IS potentially racist, because it ascribes a likelihood of misconduct (failure to be impartial) to the judge’s race or national origin.

            • Gene Callahan says:

              What absurd circular reasoning! Trump is racist because he said this judge might be biased against him, and it would be perfectly fine for Hispanics to be biased against him, since he is… racist!

              (And once again, “Mexican” is not a race.)

              • John says:

                I don’t understand this reasoning. In one case, a person votes against a candidate who says overtly racist things out of concern that the candidate will do harm to the voter or others that the voter cares about, because the candidate strongly implies he will do so.

                In the other case, the candidate claims he cannot get a fair hearing from a judge of Mexican descent because, despite the judge’s sworn oath to be impartial, the judge will not be able to control his improper response to the candidate’s anti-Mexican comments.

                In one case, the response to racism (not voting for the racist candidate) is a non racist defensive response to racism; in the other case, the claim that the judge cannot control himself because of his strong identification with his national origin is in fact a classic example of national origin discrimination.

                In short, I’m not seeing the argument that this is an example of circular reasoning.

                Finally, the argument that national origin discrimination is not race discrimination may be at least conceivably true but appears to me to be a distinction without a difference.

            • Gene Callahan says:

              And OF COURSE, as a judge you’re not “supposed to” allow personal bias against a party to a suit influence you. But are you really trying to claim, Keshav, that personal bias NEVER HAS swayed a judge?!

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                “But are you really trying to claim, Keshav, that personal bias NEVER HAS swayed a judge?!” No, of course not. I was just trying to explain to Bob why John’s comment does not imply “that voting for president is a trivial thing like picking a flavor of ice cream”. I was explaining why John’s comment is consistent with viewing voting as just as important and one’s duties as a judge.

      • Tel says:

        Yes, I agree with Callahan.

        Weird, but statistically likely given a long enough time frame.

    • Anonymous says:

      “How is fire bombing children in Iraq not racist?”

      Talk about identity politics. Unless the *reason* for doing so is literally something like “too many Arab babies!”, how it isn’t racist is the same way the fire bombing of children in Dresden wasn’t racist.

      • RL Styne says:

        I should have clarified.

        By the standard that people are calling Trump a racist, Hillary should also be called a racist.

        • Andrew_FL says:

          Well. Yeah.

        • Tel says:

          It’s not like the people getting bombed don’t know how to donate to the Clinton Foundation.

          If Russia and Saudi Arabia can do it, then anybody can.

  3. Andrew_FL says:

    Come on Bob, this isn’t hard. Trump extrapolated from demographics to stereotype and prejudge an individual.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Andrew_FL wrote:

      Come on Bob, this isn’t hard. Trump extrapolated from demographics to stereotype and prejudge an individual.

      Andrew_FL so if instead he had just said, “I think in general Mexicans are rapists, even though there are some good individuals,” nobody would have construed that as racist?

      • Andrew_FL says:

        You can generalize about groups without being racist, but only if your generalizations are, you know, true.

          • Andrew_FL says:

            Human trafficking involves people raping young women? Who knew!

          • Keshav Srinivasan says:

            Does that mean that most people who come across the border are rapists? Because that’s what he suggested when he said “And some, I assume, are good people.”

            • Jim says:

              Why would a broad generalization only be valid when the number it describes is 50% + 1 of the group it’s a predicate of?

              If I say “North African Muslim men who’ve recently emigrated to Sweden are rapists” (which, given the statistics, is clearly true) why would you think that means I’m making a claim that at least more than 1/2 of them are? Rather than what I’m obviously saying; that there’s a much greater tendency than what we in the west would expect.

              • Andrew_FL says:

                “How do I English?” Basically

                If you say “North African Muslim men who’ve recently emigrated to Sweden are rapists” You are saying, not, what you apparently meant to say “[A lot of] North African Muslim men who’ve recently emigrated to Sweden are rapists” instead you are saying “[All] North African Muslim men who’ve recently emigrated to Sweden are rapists”

                Pay attention, this information will be on your final exam.

              • Jim says:

                Yup. That was poorly worded. You’re right.

            • Gene Callahan says:

              Absurd, Keshav. He never said anything remotely like “most people who come across the border are rapists.”

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                That is the implication of the line “And some, I assume, are good people.”

      • Keshav Srinivasan says:

        Bob, both using a generalization like that to prejudge an individual, and simply making a generalization like that, can be racist.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          OK so Andrew_FL was wrong then, when he tried to explain it to me, right? You are contradicting what he said. And you both think this is “obvious.”

          • Andrew_FL says:

            Why? I agree it can be racist, too. But not when it is merely a statement of fact.

            George Will observed demographic facts. Trump insinuated Mexicans were disproportionately racists.

            • Major.Freedom says:

              No, George Will made a prediction of what Hispanics would think and do, which is racist.

              • Andrew_FL says:

                Facts can be true or false, they cannot be racist.

                I can confidently predict about 90% of the black vote will go to the democratic party candidate any given election. Guess I must be racist. In other news, water is wet, and I am bigoted against hydrogen-oxygen polygamy for noting that.

          • Keshav Srinivasan says:

            Bob, I am not contradicting Andrew_FL. Andrew_FL is saying that In this situation, the fact that Trump is prejudging an individual using a generalization is what makes his comment about the judge racist. That is not to say that is the only possible thing that can make a comment racist.

            • Gene Callahan says:

              Wow! Trump has been dealing with this judge for THREE YEARS now! What makes you want to keep making up the fact he is “pre-judging” him?

              I’ll tell you what: you are hypnotized. You have been hypnotized using well-known persuasion techniques to believe that Trump is racist, so now everything you see confirms that.

              And that is why you keep making these ridiculously counter-factual claims: when someone in the room shouts out “green!”, you think it is completely normal to jump up and take your clothes off, and can’t understand why someone else can miss how “obvious” it is that that is the right response.

              • Andrew_FL says:

                People who live in hypnotized houses shouldn’t throw pocket watches, Gene.

    • Jim says:

      As Gene points out above, he post-judged the individual.

      • Andrew_FL says:

        Nope, he hasn’t even judged Trump guilty of fraud yet.

      • Keshav Srinivasan says:

        If he simply post-judged the individual and said “This judge is biased against me, probably because he’s of Mexican heritage”, that would be different. But he said way more than that.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          What did he say? Look this is a goofy argument we’re having, in the grand scheme, because I’ve always thought Trump was a boor. But it’s like when people say “Martin Luther King was a plagiarist” and then others say, “Hey! Stop being racist!” and I make the minor point that that’s technically not a racist thing to say. It’s tacky perhaps and makes you a jerk if you just bring it up to annoy people who like his speeches, but it’s not racist.

          And so the same thing with Trump. Suppose the FBI director had been Hillary Clinton’s brother, and Trump said he thought the decision was biased. Would that make Trump an enemy of siblings?

        • Gene Callahan says:

          No, Keshav, that IS what he said, in so many words!!!

    • Gene Callahan says:

      “Trump extrapolated from demographics to stereotype and prejudge an individual.”

      Come on, Andrew, this isn’t hard! Trump did not “prejudge” this individual! He’s been dealing with him in court. He has lots of EXPERIENCE with this individual. He did not say, “ALL Mexican judges are biased.” He said, “THIS Mexican judge is biased.”

      The whole charge is completely idiotic, and only gained any traction due to confirmation bias.

      • Andrew_FL says:

        What a crock, Gene. The trial hasn’t even happened yet, and he’s assuming the judge will rule against him. That’s pre.

  4. Bob Murphy says:

    In case anyone cares: The reason I’m being anal about this is that I think people throw around the term “racist” way too much, such that it loses its potency. So you are making it easier for actual racists to roll their eyes when they get called out about legit racist things.

    You can say Trump is a jerk for saying a Mexican judge (and there’s nothing wrong with that term–I’m an Irish guy, duh) would be biased against him because of Trump’s policies regarding Mexico, but that doesn’t make him a racist. Maybe he’s a racist for other reasons, and I certainly thought the “rapist” stuff qualifies as racist comments, but the stuff about the judge wasn’t racist.

    • Keshav Srinivasan says:

      Bob, what do you think of the argument that by saying that he doesn’t want Mexican judges, Trump is admitting that his statements and policies are racist against Mexicans?

      • Dan says:

        Why couldn’t it be that he is acknowledging that he has seen that a lot of Mexicans don’t like his policies? Why isn’t he allowed to acknowledge that a lot of people think he is racist without agreeing with them?

      • Major.Freedom says:

        What do you think of racist and biased individuals who happen to be Mexicans whose racism and bias are pro-[the race they happen to belong] and anti-[the race they do not happen to belong]?

        Is it racist to simply identify the existence of these individuals?

      • Gene Callahan says:

        “that by saying that he doesn’t want Mexican judges, ”

        Why do you feel the need to MAKE THINGS UP, Keshav? Trump never said anything remotely like, “I don’t want Mexican judges.”

        He said THIS judge has it in for him, perhaps because he’s Mexican and doesn’t like the wall idea.

        • Keshav Srinivasan says:

          Gene, he has said multiple times things like “He’s a Mexican, I’m building a wall, so of course he should recuse himself.” The clear implication of that is that all judges of Mexican heritage should recuse themselves in his case.

  5. Bob Murphy says:

    Keshav / Andrew_FL / et al:

    Try this one. Suppose a black man is accused of shooting a white police officer. His defense lawyer makes it clear to the press that he doesn’t want his client to face an all-white jury.

    Would you guys say the defense lawyer is racist?

    • Andrew_FL says:

      Yes, I would.

    • Keshav Srinivasan says:

      Bob, due to America’s racial history it’s often hard to think through situations like this, only because we’re primed to sympathize with the black man. However, if a white guy shot a black guy and he objected to an all-black jury, that would strike me as a racist objection.

      • Richie says:

        ^^^ This passage proves that we are doomed.

        • Jim says:

          Yeah. He just admitted he treats people differently based on the color of their skin without knowing more about them. I can’t think of a better operational definition of racism than that.

          • Andrew_FL says:

            Not how I read it at all, guys. I assumed Keshav meant he thinks about the situation and to avoid bias, asks what if the races were reversed. I assumed he meant, his answer to the question with races reversed was also his answer to question with original races.

            • Keshav Srinivasan says:

              Yes, exactly. It’s like when Bill Clinton criticized Sista Souljah’s comments by saying “If the races were reversed, you’d think it was David Duke talking.” It was a way to get people to see the racism in Sista Soulah’s remarks, since due to America’s racial history we’re more accustomed to seeing racism of whites against blacks compared to racism of blacks against whites.

          • Keshav Srinivasan says:

            I didn’t say I treat anyone differently. I just said that I find it harder to imagine a black guy being racist against white people, only because we’ve had for so much anti-black racism in this country, including slavery, Jim Crow, and racial dog whistles, compared to anti-white racism. That’s why, when determining whether anti-white racism is going on, I find it helpful to see what my reaction would be if the races were reversed.

            • Major.Freedom says:

              That is racist. You associate what people today think, on the basis of their skin color.

          • Gene Callahan says:

            For Jim, “racism” = “dealing with reality.”

          • Gene Callahan says:

            Try this one out for size, Jim: we are going to set your salary for next year in a weird way. We are going to choose 100 black Americans at random, and 100 white Americans at Random. You get to pick either group, and then we will pay you the average salary of that group.

            Are you “racist” is you choose the white group?!

            • Jim says:

              Heh, I’m not sure why you responded since I’ve been on your side in all my comments here.

              This is a false analogy. I’m not denying the reality of aggregates (look above about my comment about North African Muslim immigrants to Sweden).

              For example, African American aggregate IQ is 10-15 points lower than white Americans. I work in tech. If I’m are interviewing someone for employment after they passed the resume and phone screen, I’m not going to consider the racial stock from which they came in my assessment of their worthiness for the position.

              However, if I’m forced to make a decision based on random sampling of a population, how can I do more than comply with a simple application of the central limit theorem?

              You point to this later example as if it invalidates my attitude in the former.

      • Dan says:

        Why is that racist? Would you seriously tell the white client in your scenario that he should have no objection to an all black jury? That just seems idiotic.

        • Andrew_FL says:

          Why is it racist? Are you kidding? His objection to any all white jury is basically that white people while be inherently biased against him. Of course my client’s objection is racist.

          But if I’m a sleazy lawyer, yes I fight to get my client off at all costs, even resorting to racist tactics.

          A good reason not to be a lawyer.

          • Dan says:

            No, it’s not. His objection would be that an all white jury is more likely to biased against him. Are you denying the existence of racism and saying a black person would be irrational to worry that an all white jury might not be in his best interests.

            I think you’d be a terrible lawyer that no sane person should ever consider hiring if that is how you see things.

            • Andrew_FL says:

              When did I used the word irrational, Dan? That’s your word, not mine.

        • Keshav Srinivasan says:

          Yes, an all-black jury should have no problems with impartially judging a white guy shooting a black guy. Now if there’s specific reason to believe that one or more of the jurors have some kind of racial prejudice, that might be grounds to object. But I see no reason to believe that the average black person would be biased.

          • Dan says:

            Well, I agree that an all black or any other color type of jury should have no problem impartially judging anything. But just because they should doesn’t mean they will.

            But that’s not what I asked. I asked if you’d tell the white guy to not have any objection to having an all back jury in your scenario. Because that seems like the most absurd thing you could say to him. It’s not racist to worry that an all black jury is more likely to be racist against him than an all white jury or a mixed jury. That’s just how it is whether it is the way it should be or not. Sorry racism does exist

            • Gene Callahan says:

              Right. This point is so obvious that it is extraordinary Keshav is ignoring it. EVERYONE has biases.

          • Dan says:

            I mean, come on. My mom should be able to impartially judge a disagreement between us, but I wouldn’t accuse you of being sexist or racist or anti-family for opposing her judging a case between us.

          • Gene Callahan says:

            “should”?!!!

            Let’s ignore the reality that every single person in the world has biases, and pretend we can make our choices on how everyone “should” behave!

            • Keshav Srinivasan says:

              Gene, I don’t mean should in a moral sense, I mean should in the sense of likely, as in “this road should take you to the interstate.”

    • anonymous says:

      If I was the lawyer, I would demand that no member of the jury would be white, unless they were anarchists, in which case I would not care about their race.

    • Tel says:

      Suppose a black man is accused of shooting a white police officer. His defense lawyer makes it clear to the press that he doesn’t want his client to face an all-white jury.

      A jury should be randomly selected and represent a cross section of society. If it looks like everyone in the jury is remarkably similar to everyone else in that jury, then you would have to question the selection process. This doesn’t particularly apply to race, it could be questioned on sex, age, social status or anything.

  6. Dan says:

    It’s not that hard to see the difference.

    When you are grading tests, would you unfairly treat a student you know to be an atheist?

    If you are voting, would you take into account the fact that a candidate was an atheist and not necessarily reflect your views?

    If someone suggested that you are unfairly penalizing atheist students without any evidence because you are a christian, would you be pissed off?

    • Dan says:

      ^^^^this is a different Dan. I’m much more handsome than this new guy.

  7. Tyler says:

    Bob, i see where you are goingwith that because it is truly a racist remark, however- i think you go wrong in claiming that the average person thinks voting is that important. I think most people subconsciously know that their vote matters little, and tend to vote on one issue.

  8. Ken P says:

    My thought when this first came out was that – in this particular case – Trump was not being a racist.

    If an African American defendant were to say “This judge is white so I am worried that he will not give me a fair trial”, he might be right or wrong about that assumption (at least with that particular judge), but I would not say (and the press would not say) that the defendant is being racist.

    How is it that suspecting someone else of being biased is being racist? Why exactly is it that we worry about the makeup of a jury and trying to have a jury of our peers?

    (disclaimer, I am not even close to a pro-Trump supporter)

    • Andrew_FL says:

      Suspecting someone else is biased because of their race is racist. You would not say that defendant is racist, but the way you described his concern, he is.

      • Ken P says:

        So you think someone would be a racist to want a racially diverse jury?

Leave a Reply