Never said that. Of course they can. It should, however, be procedure to not even make this a potential question by having a third party judge.
I'm trying to remove from the equation the possibility of both bias and claims of bias (in this regard), is all. Is that not plausible?
By the same logic, then, it should be procedure to not even make it a potential question to insist that American judges not be used in cases involving American companies, right?
Or, for that matter, let's exclude any judge who's ever eaten Korean food from cases involving Samsung. They might theoretically say "I like Korean food, so the Koreans must be great people and therefore, I'll rule in Samsung's favor". Or maybe we should eliminate any judge who owns a Korean car. Or whose family members own a Korean car. For that matter, if they own a Samsung or LG TV or appliance, they should be eliminated because they might be biased. Or maybe they have a 4th cousin twice removed who dated a Korean once.
You can't simply exclude someone on the basis of their national origin. You need evidence of bias and your insistence that she might be biased because of Korean ancestors has no more validity than claiming that she might be biased because she has a Korean TV or car or dishwasher.
By the same logic, then, it should be procedure to not even make it a potential question to insist that American judges not be used in cases involving American companies, right?
Domestically, no. Internationally, I believe that's what I'm saying.
Quote:
Or, for that matter, let's exclude any judge who's ever eaten Korean food from cases involving Samsung. They might theoretically say "I like Korean food, so the Koreans must be great people and therefore, I'll rule in Samsung's favor".
I'm thinking you may not correctly understand what hyperbole is? To clarify, hyperbole is an exaggerated phrase such as "I waited an eternity", "I tried a thousand times", etc. What comment from jragosta qualifies as such? Pretty much everything he stated in his comment appeared to be meant taken literally.
Hey Skil, by your logic, Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from the Prop 8 case due to his sexual orientation.
Continuing along that line of reasoning, the only judge who should rightfully have heard that particular case would have been an avowed non-gendered asexual. In any other case, the judge would have had the potential of bias in one direction or the other.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Because - your argument is that a judge of Korean descent can not judge fairly in a case involving a Korean company.
Never said that. Of course they can. It should, however, be procedure to not even make this a potential question by having a third party judge.
I'm trying to remove from the equation the possibility of both bias and claims of bias (in this regard), is all. Is that not plausible?
By the same logic, then, it should be procedure to not even make it a potential question to insist that American judges not be used in cases involving American companies, right?
Or, for that matter, let's exclude any judge who's ever eaten Korean food from cases involving Samsung. They might theoretically say "I like Korean food, so the Koreans must be great people and therefore, I'll rule in Samsung's favor". Or maybe we should eliminate any judge who owns a Korean car. Or whose family members own a Korean car. For that matter, if they own a Samsung or LG TV or appliance, they should be eliminated because they might be biased. Or maybe they have a 4th cousin twice removed who dated a Korean once.
You can't simply exclude someone on the basis of their national origin. You need evidence of bias and your insistence that she might be biased because of Korean ancestors has no more validity than claiming that she might be biased because she has a Korean TV or car or dishwasher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
By the same logic, then, it should be procedure to not even make it a potential question to insist that American judges not be used in cases involving American companies, right?
Domestically, no. Internationally, I believe that's what I'm saying.
Quote:
Or, for that matter, let's exclude any judge who's ever eaten Korean food from cases involving Samsung. They might theoretically say "I like Korean food, so the Koreans must be great people and therefore, I'll rule in Samsung's favor".
Don't hyperbolize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Don't hyperbolize.
I'm thinking you may not correctly understand what hyperbole is? To clarify, hyperbole is an exaggerated phrase such as "I waited an eternity", "I tried a thousand times", etc. What comment from jragosta qualifies as such? Pretty much everything he stated in his comment appeared to be meant taken literally.
So American judges should not be allowed to rule on International trade cases that involve American firms. Gotcha.
Look up the meaning of 'hyperbole'. No one 'hyperbolized'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanDavid
Hey Skil, by your logic, Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from the Prop 8 case due to his sexual orientation.
Continuing along that line of reasoning, the only judge who should rightfully have heard that particular case would have been an avowed non-gendered asexual. In any other case, the judge would have had the potential of bias in one direction or the other.