Why should anyone back down from their opinion that Curiel brings a specific hispanic “slant” to the table just because he was born in Indiana?
Obama stacks the courts with Hispanics, with their hispanic agenda, and the perpetually offended go apoplectic when it’s suggested that this hispanic agenda may get in the way of a specific case.
It’s BEYOND THE PALE to suggest such a thing.
The left has a stranglehold on the squishes amongst us. Time to get your minds right, people.
Fook roo! Asshore!
In The Federal District Court where I live, the Chief Judge for seven years, He was a former ACLU attorney. Carter appointee. His liberal bias was a fact, and it was known among the attorneys practicing in his court. His deep grained, victim-savior mentality,
made a difference in the results of many, many, civil and criminal cases.
(reminder to self. look for an edit button before posting)
The term “slant” seems to convey solely some sort of innocent non-standard point of view, but that’s not supported by long-standing usage. Here’s the relevant entry from the OED (emphasis mine):
You just can’t separate out “bias” from the meaning of “slant.”
I bet their tamale farts smell exactly like Moochelle’s but no way in hell am I ever gonna get close to any of ’em to ever find out.