Phlegm Alley Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 A Brooklyn, N.Y., judge who wrote a children’s book in which he appears to compare illegal immigrants to weeds choking the life out of society has come under fire from criminal defense attorneys concerned that immigrants might not be receiving a fair shake in his courtroom. Link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Horrors....illegal immigrants not getting a fair shake in court. Sounds like we need to clone him about a hundred times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prognastic Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Only judges with an extreme liberal bias should be allowed to rule from the bench. -Any given liberal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Link. What if he said Jews were blood suckers? That's different! That's different! That's different! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 What if he said Jews were blood suckers? That's different! That's different! That's different! So you're saying Jews and ILLEGAL immigrants should be considered the same in the legal system? That's brilliant stuff there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 So you're saying Jews and ILLEGAL immigrants should be considered the same in the legal system? That's brilliant stuff there. What's brilliant is your twisting of a simple argument. Let's see, he calls immigrats weeds, and the nazis called the jews parasites. Are not weeds really parasites? No difference. Hate is hate. If this judge really said this he should be shown the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 What's brilliant is your twisting of a simple argument. Let's see, he calls immigrats weeds, and the nazis called the jews parasites. Are not weeds really parasites? No difference. Hate is hate. If this judge really said this he should be shown the door. I'm twisting a simple "argument" but you comparing something a guy says to a regime that murdered over 20,000,000 people is valid? That's just awesome. There's just no level you clowns won't try to chip away to in a desperate attempt to validate your ridiculous ideology. BTW, freedom of speech applies to conservative judges too. I know how much you liberal wackos think that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of this country are yours to pick and choose as far as who gets them and just how much of each one is doled out, but that's not at all the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 I'm twisting a simple "argument" but you comparing something a guy says to a regime that murdered over 20,000,000 people is valid? That's just awesome. There's just no level you clowns won't try to chip away to in a desperate attempt to validate your ridiculous ideology. BTW, freedom of speech applies to conservative judges too. I know how much you liberal wackos think that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of this country are yours to pick and choose as far as who gets them and just how much of each one is doled out, but that's not at all the case. No, you wack job, I'm not comparing one guy to an entire regime. LOL!!! I'm saying his thoughts are in line with an ideology that was hateful. One guy won't kill 20 million people, I get that. And yes, this idiot should have freedom of speech, and he should be judged for that. If he says immigrants are parasites then we should say, as in the case of you, that's great, and me, that's wrong. Are you a weed Darin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 What if he said Jews were blood suckers? That's different! That's different! That's different! Um, yes, it IS different. And if you need to have someone explain WHY it's different, then I pity you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 No, you wack job, I'm not comparing one guy to an entire regime. LOL!!! I'm saying his thoughts are in line with an ideology that was hateful. One guy won't kill 20 million people, I get that. See, but that's exactly what you did. And here I am calling for your head. I wonder if there's a parallel to be made here. Try and figure it out. And yes, this idiot should have freedom of speech, and he should be judged for that. If he says immigrants are parasites then we should say, as in the case of you, that's great, and me, that's wrong. See, he didn't say "immigrants" are parasites. He specifically used the term "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS". Illegal meaning committing a crime. Are you honestly saying that a judge shouldn't have a problem with people who break the law? This is simply another case of the media stirring up retards like you over NOTHING. As usual, they are ridiculously successful at pandering to the weak minded. Are you a weed Darin? No. I was born here. I wouldn't mind pulling a few weeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 See, but that's exactly what you did. And here I am calling for your head. I wonder if there's a parallel to be made here. Try and figure it out. See, he didn't say "immigrants" are parasites. He specifically used the term "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS". Illegal meaning committing a crime. Are you honestly saying that a judge shouldn't have a problem with people who break the law? This is simply another case of the media stirring up retards like you over NOTHING. As usual, they are ridiculously successful at pandering to the weak minded. No. I was born here. I wouldn't mind pulling a few weeds. Hate leads to what the Nazis did. They were calling Jews parasites long before they even killed one of them. IF what he is suppose to have said is true, he is a bigot. He called an entire class of people parasites. You don't have a problem with that I understand. Says a lot about you and the Conservative ideology you follow mindlessly. Yup, media pointing out a hatemonger who is to proside over people he considers to be paraistes. Nope, no story there. Just like Iraq shouldn't be a story. 3,000 dead? Hell that happened on 9-11, we should just get use to it and move on. Remember how you Conservatives were saying the media isn't showing the 'progress' in Iraq? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 What's brilliant is your twisting of a simple argument. Let's see, he calls immigrats weeds, and the nazis called the jews parasites. Are not weeds really parasites? No difference. Hate is hate. If this judge really said this he should be shown the door. Uh, no. He called illegal immigrants "weeds". And that includes illegal Jews, just to make you happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 The link will not open for me and I can't find any mention of this story in the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 The link will not open for me and I can't find any mention of this story in the media. You liberals are too intellectual to do a simple google search, huh? Took me about 3 seconds to find the "story." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Hate leads to what the Nazis did. They were calling Jews parasites long before they even killed one of them. IF what he is suppose to have said is true, he is a bigot. I thought you liberals were "anti-labeling"? Or is that only when it comes to whatever group of people you're pandering to? What if he said all murderers are weeds? Does that make him a bigot too? He called an entire class of people parasites. No he didn't. When did illegal immigrants become a "class of people?" What other criminals do you consider "classes of people?" Violent felons? Pedophiles? White Collar thieves? You don't have a problem with that I understand. Says a lot about you and the Conservative ideology you follow mindlessly. Because I've actually read the story. My lack of issue has nothing to do with his political ideology - and your charge that I "follow it mindlessly" is almost as funny as it is false. Yup, media pointing out a hatemonger who is to proside over people he considers to be paraistes. Nope, no story there. You let me know which human being you've met that doesn't have a single bias on any issue. Then we'll be able to find our first real judge. Just like Iraq shouldn't be a story. 3,000 dead? Hell that happened on 9-11, we should just get use to it and move on. Remember how you Conservatives were saying the media isn't showing the 'progress' in Iraq? LOL The charge that the big box media doesn't show any of the positive in Iraq is true (just as they only spend about 1% of their time on positive stories about anything) - but it's not an issue and the only reason I'd actually care about it has to do with the safety of the boots on the ground. I don't expect you to understand the importance of the issue, because you're just another mouth breather who can't see the forest for the trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 BTW, freedom of speech applies to conservative judges too. I know how much you liberal wackos think that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of this country are yours to pick and choose as far as who gets them and just how much of each one is doled out, but that's not at all the case. Yes it does. But you're misrepresenting what "freedom of speech" is. You are equating it to 'You can say anything you want w/o consequences.' In reality, FoS just guarantees that the govt cannot put you in prison for what you say (besides making a threat of violence). It doesn't mean you can't be fired from your job for what you say, ostracised from the community or that people must continue doing business with you. FoS is like the freedom to jump off your roof and fly --- you can try it, but there are consequences. You let me know which human being you've met that doesn't have a single bias on any issue. Then we'll be able to find our first real judge. The important point here is that this book offers real, physical proof of bias. Every time this judge hears a case involving illegal immigration in any way, it provides immediate grounds for appeal. The reason why nominees for SCotUS (i.e. Roberts' confirmation, memorably) decline to answer such broad questions on their philosophy is that it gives the appearance of prejudice. He had the right to write the book, but not w/o professional consequences. What those consequences may be, I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Um, yes, it IS different. And if you need to have someone explain WHY it's different, then I pity you. ROTFLMAO! In other words you can't explain it! Lori the dimwit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 You liberals are too intellectual to do a simple google search, huh? Took me about 3 seconds to find the "story." I went to yahoo news thinking it was cureent and didn't waste anymore time with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 I thought you liberals were "anti-labeling"? Or is that only when it comes to whatever group of people you're pandering to?What if he said all murderers are weeds? Does that make him a bigot too? No he didn't. When did illegal immigrants become a "class of people?" What other criminals do you consider "classes of people?" Violent felons? Pedophiles? White Collar thieves? Because I've actually read the story. My lack of issue has nothing to do with his political ideology - and your charge that I "follow it mindlessly" is almost as funny as it is false. You let me know which human being you've met that doesn't have a single bias on any issue. Then we'll be able to find our first real judge. The charge that the big box media doesn't show any of the positive in Iraq is true (just as they only spend about 1% of their time on positive stories about anything) - but it's not an issue and the only reason I'd actually care about it has to do with the safety of the boots on the ground. I don't expect you to understand the importance of the issue, because you're just another mouth breather who can't see the forest for the trees. Sure illegals are a 'class' of people. You can classify anything you moron. And news flash Dar Dar, all illegals don't come here to rob, steal and kill, in fact most don't. Just like most G.I.s don't murder civilians in Iraq, just some do. I still find your point laughable that a person has to kill 20 million people to be a bigot. Pretty high standard there! The media and Iraq? LOL, hey, they also don't show how Iraq was better off under Saddam. Don't see much of that in the media, but its the truth. Perhaps the media can focus on the more living space each individual Iraqi who is still alive or has not ran from the country ahead of the chaos now has. There is at least a million fewer souls in the country now. Think of the elbow room! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phlegm Alley Posted January 4, 2007 Author Share Posted January 4, 2007 My whole point of posting this is not an argument about illegals and being PC when dealing with them. My point was should ANY judge publish his political views when he has a position in Gov't that calls for him to impartial when ruling? Regardless of my stance on illegal immigration I don't think a judge should provide that kind of information to the public. Here is another story about a conservative sitting judge attacking the liberal left "femifascists". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts