i think the facts in the trump university case are clear enough. it was a scam. and trump is deflecting.
but, it's a little curious to me that accusing an hispanic judge of racial bias is a horrible injustice, whereas accusing a white judge of racial bias is the core of a theory taught in university courses all around the continent. can we get some consistency, here?
reality check: trump has been railing against hispanics for months. i really don't think it's so outlandish to suggest that this might affect the ruling. when you deny this, what you're really doing is pushing this thoroughly debunked "justice is blind" model of legal theory. it's just not right - not as a way to describe how the legal system actually works in reality. rather, we have something called critical legal theory that explains the decisions made in court rooms in terms of things like racial and gender biases, class analyses, ideological positions....
judges don't exist in a vacuum. their opinions come out in their rulings.
so, would that mean that the ruling is invalid? no. it would mean that there are consequences for running your mouth off.