This nation has witnessed yet again the bias, inequality and privilege that plague our judicial system.
Of course I am referring to the case of former Stanford swimmer Brock Turner and the slap on the wrist he received from the judge — a former Stanford athlete — presiding over his case.
The nation is right to be outraged. People are right to call for the judge to be ousted!
This is a clear case of bias for a defendant.
Now here’s where I get people really fired up: I am not a fan of the way Donald Trump has attacked judges in the past week, but I will say that those complaining about judicial bias in the Stanford case need to show a bit more understanding of Trump’s argument.
Why is it so clear to everyone that a former Stanford coach-turned-judge was biased for another Stanford athlete but outrageous to think that a judge whose parents are from Mexico would be biased AGAINST a man trying to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico?
It seems a bit disingenuous to me.
I realize that the circumstances are apples and oranges, but the cases at least share a common bond.
It’s the possibility that the judges are acting with emotion above the law — and by possibility I mean optical certainty. This happens all the time!
Don’t believe me? Just look at the incarceration rates of white males versus black males for the same crimes. It’s staggering!
So where do we go from here?
Here’s a fun fact: The Stanford judge was re-elected on Tuesday. Yes, many judges are elected. That might come as a surprise to us, as the majority of voters just skip that section of the ballot.
Start doing your homework. Find out what these judges are all about. THEN VOTE!
It may not bring immediate change but just can start a process that can bring a better system for our kids.
- Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman ordered into custody
- Sen. John McCain criticizes Donald Trump for ending Korean war games
- Trump delivers warning on trade as he leaves G-7 summit
- Flake rips Trump on trade in Senate speech, touts US role as world leader
- Sharper Point: Is Dennis Rodman a deep-cover diplomat in a dress?