I love how white, Christian men are the default, unbiased standard. Anyone else is suspect.
Cites?
Let’s have a cite, since I have no idea what you’re talking about or how this is relevant. Further, unless the reversal claimed that the reason the jury decision was wrong was because they were white, rather than for some other reason like because the jury members believed that black people were inherently criminal, then it’s irrelevant.
If he’s biased, it’s not because of his ethnicity. Unless you believe in intrinsic differences in character between races, then no particular ethnicity is more or less likely to demonstrate bias in judging than any other.
Saying a judge is biased isn’t racist (by itself). Saying a judge is biased because of his ethnicity is racist.
I assume that the person is misunderstanding Batson v. Kentucky.
Oh so now you’re questioning the integrity of a federal judge because of his race now too, with no foundation in fact other than the man’s ethnic heritage, and the Republican nominee for president has also done it. And what chip? Is having Mexican parents now considered a “chip” by conservatives? This should be an interesting-- and revealing-- five months for our country. It’s only June and things are already putrid.
For anyone confused about what PCP is talking about here:
And, in case, you’re still confused, the reason for that is that PCP clearly did not understand Batson v. Kentucky. At no point in the proceedings did the court rule that the all-white jury was necessarily racist and that therefore the trial was incorrect. Rather, they ruled that they way the prosecution removed all African-Americans based on their race constituted a violation of the equal protection act on the part of the prosecution - a procedural problem, sort of like getting evidence dismissed by violating someone’s 4th-amendment rights.
Or maybe he’s referring to Foster v. Chatman, which appealed to the same basic principles as Batson v. Kentucky and therefore still has absolutely nothing to do with what he’s saying. I have no idea; it’s an incredibly vague post.
Evidence that this judge has a “a chip on his shoulder”?
How many times has he ruled in favor of white people? How many times has he done so improperly?
Have you actually looked at his record? Or are you just assuming that Trump wouldn’t make up a story with absolutely no basis in reality to further his own goals? If the latter, you really, really need to stop doing that.
Seriously?
That’s not was “racist” is.
There are all kinds of “minority bar associations.” I’ve never heard anyone allege anything improper about it.
Oh, I’m sure you can find someone saying “How would you feel about a bar association for white men only?”
If Abraham Lincoln were alive today, he would thrash Trump like Douglas.
If Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, he would thrash Trump, period.
If Eisenhower were alive today, he would bust Trump to Private First Class
Where are the old time Republican values I can support? 
The problem, of course, being that until fairly recently, ALL bar associations were for white men only (and not infrequently, for white Protestant men–Jews and Catholics need not apply). The name wasn’t White Male Lawyers’ Association, but that group dominated and (implicitly or explicitly) excluded those who didn’t “fit in.”
In fact, that pattern held across numerous professions, which is why organizations for female accountants and minority doctors existed: to have a place where professionals of MY gender and MY religion and MY ethnicity were actually welcomed as participating members, not begrudgingly allowed in the back door after all of the real business had been concluded.
BuzzFeed is terminating its ad deal with the Republican Party because it doesn’t agree with Donald Trump’s campaign.
Ken White, Lawsplainer, has a couple of articles about why Judge Curiel’s summary judgements in Trump’s case looks quite reasonable -
https://popehat.com/2016/06/01/lawsplainer-is-there-anything-unusual-about-judge-curiels-orders-in-the-trump-university-case/
And also about the issue of recusal and how it works -
https://popehat.com/2016/06/06/lawsplainer-when-must-federal-judges-recuse-themselves-anyway/
Ken characterizes Donald’s behavior as “Puerile “Alpha” bullshit” but he also offers citations about how and why a judge might be recused and why he thinks this is all just public posturing.
That would explain why Donald keeps mouthing off, but his lawyers remain strangely silent: they have no interest in getting slapped.
The incoherent rambling, the compulsive repetition of phrases and words, the directly contradictory statements, the inability to focus in answering questions without tangential commentary, refusal to take advice from campaign staff, demonstrable Dunning-Kruger effect, lack of self-reflection, social tone-deafness, rage and bullying, overt racism… is Trump mentally ill?
To paraphrase the Dude: he’s not mentally ill, he’s just an asshole.
“If it were not for the high office I held, I would have taken him by the seat of the pants and the nape of the neck and thrown him out the window.” -Teddy Roosevelt, when dealing with a robber baron.
I would happily vote for a dead Theodore Roosevelt over an all-too-alive Donald Trump.
No one would have to filibuster his SC nominees.
The state of the union speeches would be real, real short.
But if his arm fell off while he was visiting a foreign country, people would say that he’s with a foreign power, at least in part! Though he wouldn’t stand with them on anything…
It’s a tossup. 
Theodore Roosevelt, more than any other political figure, gives me shivering fits of love/hate. Much to admire in his progressivism, but dear God! A man who believed that war was some sort of manly, virile sport? And believed it even after he saw its face? I don’t get it, I just don’t get it…
Trump Orders Surrogates to Intensify Criticism of Judge and Journalists
Who’s running the show?