>>1149544
>accusing the judge of racism implies his rulings have been tainted by racism
does it? Again, you're really obviously not a lawyer, all it implies is that he is racist. You would then need to prove that his racism impacted his work for it to be a serious charge, and even then the judge would be in hot water, not the lawyers.
See Mark Fuhrman: he didn't get in trouble for being racist, he got in trouble because he lied about his racial bias, allowing the defense attorneys to establish that he could not be trusted to be impartial in the case because of his racism.
This definitely doesn't rise to the level of contempt of court, which is a very specific charge.
Why are you trying to make authoritative statements on law when you clearly know nothing about it?

Back | Go to board

Board:

/news/

Thread:

Ted Cruz Tries to Ratfuck Stanford Law Students Who Engage in First Amendment Rights and Free Speech