Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump Unhinged: Senseless Attacks on Sitting Judges Do Not a President Make
It seems in some sense pointless to say anything more against Donald Trump’s venomous personal attack on Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who has the unenviable task of presiding over a law suit that calls into question the moral probity, intellectual rigor, and economic soundness of Trump University. Ironically, for all his talk about Curiel as “hater,” he has yet to ask Curiel to recuse himself from the case, knowing full well that a vicious personal assault is better than a groundless legal motion.
Before Trump began his ugly tirade against Judge Curiel, I was prepared to have an open mind about the merits of a law suit about which I knew, and continue to know, absolutely nothing. But now that Trump has decided to double-down on these scurrilous attacks, the easiest thing to do is to presume that a man who can so badly misbehave in public matters is likely to engage in the same dubious practices in his private business dealings. If Trump thinks that he has found a new way to run a presidential campaign, it speaks poorly to his own personal integrity and political judgment. His behavior against Curiel is the kind of onslaught that makes him unfit to govern. The entire episode is a nonstop travesty and should be condemned as such.
The situation is only worse because Trump, it appears, has decided to double-down on his offensive strategy in the face of huge amounts of criticism from all sides of the political spectrum, including key leaders in the Republican Party who have had to eat more than a modest amount of humble pie in order to remain loyal to the party. But his coarse speech that treats the merits of this case as self-evident shows that he has become a caricature of himself, willing to engage in the worst form of pyrotechnics in support of a vain and inglorious cause. He has become unhinged and perhaps delusional.
His sins on this matter go beyond monumentally bad taste for several reasons. The first is that there is absolutely nothing in Curiel’s background that merits this kind of harsh rebuke. Curiel has had extensive experience in private practice and government service. He was both a state and a federal court judge. The one item on his résumé that attracts immediate notice was that in his role as prosecutor, he was first Deputy Chief (1996-1999) and Chief (1999-2002) of the Narcotics Enforcement Division. This position was no sinecure, for as the Wikipedia account of his life notes, “Curiel prosecuted the Arellano Felix cartel in Tijuana, Mexico, and was targeted for assassination by the drug cartel.” It is nothing short of a disgrace to tar any person who took after Mexican cartels as unfit for office because of the “inherent conflict” of being Mexican. If anything, his willingness to stand up to a Mexican cartel is a strong point in his favor.
The institutional implications in this case, however, go far beyond the particulars of this dispute, for if Trump’s warped views on judicial behavior are accepted, it becomes impossible to run a decent system of justice. Trump of course regards himself as a figure above reproach. It would never occur to the ruffian that his own biases do not rest on any inherent, i.e., unavoidable, conflict of interest, but on the openly mean-spirited way in which he speaks of other people. Does he really think that he is fit to appoint people to serve on the federal bench or indeed in any office? Do white people have conflicts so that they cannot deal with litigation in which Mexicans or African Americans or Muslims take place?
Speaking generally, it is an exceedingly important feature of a successful legal system that everyone understands that there are places where identity politics are welcome, and places in which they are utterly alien to the spirit of a particular institution. Donald Trump, as a private citizen, could decide to invite only nativists to his own Fourth of July party. Other groups could decide to celebrate Cinco De Mayo in honor of Mexico’s victory over the French at the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862. Others can celebrate Israel’s Independence Day, which this year fell on May 12, 2016. But all those forms of deep personal identification play no role in judicial decision-making.
Even though it is probably impossible for any one of us to put aside our own personal allegiances, as public servants we darn well have to try, because each of us in his or her public role owes it to all citizens to do the best that we can to keep these preferences in check. There is every reason to think that Judge Curiel has honorably hewed to this tradition of adjudication — and all too much public evidence to show that Donald Trump has done everything in his power to tear it down. We cannot run a country in which everyone gets a judge of his own race, gender or political persuasion. Anyone who says the opposite is working nonstop to tear down the fabric of American public institutions. We need desperately to preserve our social capital.
So, what should be done? Right now, the Republican Party should take it upon itself to ask whether it can nominate any candidate that shows such terrible judgment and bigotry in dealing with public matters. If the answer to that question is no, as it may well be, then they should turn themselves as one person against him, by refusing to honor his primary victories. It is better to run an open convention after removing this cancer before it spreads. The gruesome alternative is that, if he becomes President, there is all too great a chance that his impetuous temperament will lead him to perform public acts that will indeed count as high crimes and misdemeanors, worthy of impeachment. In this campaign, if Trump survives, look closely at his vice presidential pick, for sooner than you think that person could well become President after a Trump victory. So, Donald Trump — even you can learn to back off a fight that you cannot, should not, and must not win.
Published in Law
Trump is the one acting like a leftist in this episode. He assumes that the judge’s ethnic identity will be determinative of his ability to be fair in this case, because, Trump believes, no one of Mexican ancestry could possibly put Trump’s intention to build a border wall aside, and to look dispassionately at the facts of Trump University.
That is how leftists think. One’s racial or ethnic or gender identity determines whether your views are legitimate.
If the shoe were on the other foot, and a Latino candidate for president, someone like Julian Castro, were to argue that a white judge could not decide some civil case he was involved in because he (Castro) is in favor of amnesty for illegals, every Trump supporter would be apoplectic with rage.
In the Hamlet mode of “the lady doth protest too much, methinks”, he sounds guilty as hell.
Would a Jew with an openly pro-Israel policy stance be worried about a Muslim judge with membership CAIR judging him? Would a Black activist guilty with a bogus university case be worried about judge descended from and named Nathan Bedford Forrest with membership in some pro-White group? Guilty or not they’d attack.
Odds are Trump is guilty. How is his course of action not only obvious but advisable? The sooner La Raza is taken on the better for our country.
Trump’s people did their research. Judge Curiel has an impeccable reputation apparently but his ties to SD Law La Raza are a good excuse to attack ( especially if Trump is guilty….you know, like the Clintons) because the organization is made up of many anti-White racists who are organizing against Trump
Keep letting anti-White hatred exist and what comes after will be closer to your fears than the fight going on now.
Some facts to hopefully cool the heat and shade the light (depending on your perspective).
The judge is a natural born citizen and has been recognized as a hard line jurist in many drug trafficking/cartel cases.
The judge in question is a member and/or affiliated of La Raza Lawyers of California. I can’t find on their website the Judge’s name or an office he holds, but they don’t appear to list members at large. However, the organization is mentioned in contemporary news stories about the Judge. Their mission statement is non partisan.
Their website claims the National Council of Laraza, a known hard left wing open borders advocacy group, is an affiliate of the association of which the judge is associated.
This doesn’t excuse Trump’s typical ham fisted douchebaggery in calling out this judge. This is just another event that will harden support among previous supporters and harden opposition among previous Never Trump members and leave guys like me mad that Republicans/center right couldn’t get behind Ted Cruz because he prays and is a geek.
This also raises a legitimate question about the judge’s impartiality in a case involving Trump. Of course Trump doesn’t have the attention span and command of the facts to raise this legitimate issue. Perhaps some on Ricochet do.
A Latina candidate for appointment to the Supreme Court tells us that her ethnicity will inform her judicial decisions. She is confirmed in her appointment. Would not a reasonable person conclude that ethnicity might inform the judicial decisions of other judges?
Trump said what a lot of people are thinking. He didn’t do it the Belmont way, with a lot of harrumphing and legal kabuki (the kind that has caused the Mann v Steyn lawsuit to drag out for years). He did it the Fishtown way: Bam, in your face. The Left has pushed us into this corner, and it’s ugly. If the American people wanted a gentleman for president, 2012 was their chance.
Victor Davis Hanson addressed this today. Read the whole thing. Here is an excerpt:
It was quite unacceptable for Donald Trump to attack a federal judge for releasing documents relating to lawsuits against Trump University. Trump attacked the judge both personally and on the basis that his Mexican-American heritage supposedly ensured his bias against the illegal-immigration lightning rod Trump. Trump should back off. No legal system can long endure when parties to a suit brazenly attack the integrity of the court and defame a sitting judge. But by the same token the media ignored another aspect of the controversy. It is also unacceptable for a United States District Court judge to remain a member of La Raza Lawyers of San Diego, as Gonzalo Curiel has done. For all that group’s protestation about the origins, meaning, and recent philological history of the name La Raza, the term really means “the race.” It echoes a separatist and racially chauvinistic agenda dating from the 1960s, and a longer racist and anti-Semitic pedigree dating back to Francisco Franco’s fascist Spain and Benito Mussolini’s Axis Italy. Go to the legal group’s website to learn through its contorted and defensive reasoning why “la raza” does not mean “the race” — and thus learn precisely why it most certainly does denote a particular race: “La Raza Cósmica.” The website explains that the term “the ‘cosmic people,’ was developed to reflect not purity but the mixture inherent in the Hispanic people.” That inane statement would be analogous to a white group known as “The Race” claiming that it did not denote a particular Anglo-Saxon racial essence, but simply referred to the mixture inherent in the “European people.” … In fact, la raza is a favorite term of Latino elites precisely because of its 1960s racialist pedigree and its edgy connotation of ethnic solidarity. Any white judge who was a member of something called “The Race Lawyers Association,” and who was hearing a case involving a well-known proponent of illegal immigration, would have been disqualified. Either we are a 21st-century post-racial “cosmic” people or we are not. If not, then the likes of a primal Donald Trump simply mirror-image the behavior of the more sophisticated race-obsessed among us.
I’ve explained how these cases are different.
In any event, Sotomayor’s comments did not mean that she would favor her own ethnicity, rather, that her experience would provide wisdom that more privileged people would not have. She was wrong, but not in the way you imply, and her remarks provide no cover for Trump.
Professor Epstein’s friends and our politicians in NY, DC and LA have brought us this.
Exactly how does this help out Latinos in the long run?
Whats the solution? Only judges and juries of a defendants race, religion, gender, ethnic background, class, etc? Reminds me of those who thought Walker should not hear the prop 8 case. If homosexual judges and heterosexual judges were forced to recuse themselves… That doesn’t leave many left…
Re #36: VDH is right on all counts:
It is a mistake to see this as a defense of Trump. It’s better for all of us to denounce this sort of race-obsessed behavior and rhetoric from all sides. Accepting it from Trump, defending it as payback to the leftists we so rightfully despise, is a huge mistake.
Question his ties to La Raza? Fine.
Say he can’t do his job because he’s a Mexican? Not fine.
This is just the latest in the never ending story of Trump’s thin skin. His first instinct whenever anyone or anything inconveniences him is that they or it must be destroyed with extreme prejudice. The ugliest of schoolyard insults are to be used freely.
Trump supporters call this, “fighting back.” The idea that we should fight back with logic and reason instead of immature vitriol is a sign of weakness, apparently.
Got it.
I agree. I wish Trump would’ve raised the issue without going nativist. He had a potentially legitimate question and he turned it into a taunt from the 8th grade playground.
This guy, Trump, has been handed a gift. An outraged electorate willing to give him a shot at the title and he tries everything in his power to ruin it.
Sitting Judge Unhinged: Senseless Membership in La Raza Do Not An Unbiased Federal Justice Make
It is also unacceptable for a United States District Court judge to remain a member of La Raza Lawyers of San Diego, as Gonzalo Curiel has done. For all that group’s protestation about the origins, meaning, and recent philological history of the name La Raza, the term really means “the race.” It echoes a separatist and racially chauvinistic agenda dating from the 1960s, and a longer racist and anti-Semitic pedigree dating back to Francisco Franco’s fascist Spain and Benito Mussolini’s Axis Italy.
Exactly! You should all read the Journal of American Greatness on this topic. Why does the Left, and what JAG calls the “domesticated right”, unquestioningly believe we should have diversity on the bench? It’s precisely because we assume, as Sotomayor admitted, that their ethnic backgrounds will give them a different “perspective”, which, as JAG points out, means a way to get around the black- letter law. Also, were always being told by those same people that any criticism of any group is bad–it will just make them hate us!
So, Trump’s position merely reflects both of those tropes: beings the son of Mex immigrants (illegal or legal? We haven’t heard) Curiel probably is inclined to favor illegal Mex immigration. And indeed, his La Raza law group awards scholarships to illegal immigrant kids! And, Trump has criticized illegal Mex immigration–so yuh, like they’re always saying about Muslims, that’ll probably make the supporter of illegal Mex kids hate him. Really no more than conventional wisdom.
And exactly what is the story with a punitive unsealing then hasty re-sealing of discovery materials?
Finally–stop saying Trump is “guilty”. Unlike what faces Clinton ,,this is not a criminal case, it’s a civil suit for money damages.
And even more finally- check out Laureate the world’s largest for profit University which uses exactly the same hard sell tactics to pressure students–and does it to college age people, not business persons–and which paid Bill Clinton, I think, over 16 million dollars.
This case seems to demonstrate Trump’s argument that there is nothing he could do that would cause his supporters to reassess their view of him. He could literally shoot people on 5th Avenue and his supporters would say the victim deserved it, because Trump would never shoot anyone that didn’t deserve it.
The problem is, Trump needs to convince people that are not currently his supporters to win in November. Unfortunately, I keep getting the sense that winning in November is not the number one priority of Trump or his supporters.
Actually, Trump just needs to be marginally better than his opponent. We’re choosing between better and worse, not good and bad. If you think Hillary is better, please paint that word picture for us all to see.
It’s a mistake not to fight it and that’s all anybody has done. Not fight it. I don’t like this vulgar man either and I wish a hero with more class was fighting but nobody else is.
I don’t know how else to fight PC these days beyond getting in their face. What has worked? What will work? PC delenda est.
They are both unacceptable.
Professor,
If ethnicity is of no import to a judge in his decisions, then why does America find such great importance in having diversity on the bench?
Please answer.
The Left is currently working on how to punish anyone who dissents from their orthodoxy. Here’s an excerpt from a post by Harvard Law professor Mark Tushnet. Read the whole thing.
My own judgment is that taking a hard line (“You lost, live with it”) is better than trying to accommodate the losers, who – remember – defended, and are defending, positions that liberals regard as having no normative pull at all. Trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War, nor after Brown. (And taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945.)
The contest with the Left is not a high-toned Marquis of Queensbury exhibition. It’s a no-rules street fight. To lose to the Left this year will be to get curb stomped. It’s ugly, it’s only going to get uglier.
Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert and an acute observer of the national scene) just endorsed Hillary Clinton out of fear for his personal safety:
I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety. Trump supporters don’t have any bad feelings about patriotic Americans such as myself, so I’ll be safe from that crowd. But Clinton supporters have convinced me – and here I am being 100% serious – that my safety is at risk if I am seen as supportive of Trump. So I’m taking the safe way out and endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.
People are concerned about Trump. I get that. But I can’t believe he would be anywhere near as harmful to this country as Hillary Clinton.
Who finds great importance on having diversity of skin color on the bench – America, or Democrats?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoner.27s_dilemma
Retaliation is necessary. Forgiveness is necessary. Credibly signalling a retaliation strategy is also necessary.
If cooperation and racial harmony is your goal.
I just did, though you didn’t ask me–see quote 45.
Not content with this, some reporter then asked if Trump thought a Muslim judge might be prejudiced against him. To which the only logical answer is what he said: possibly. Then they made that into a headline: “Trump Questions Impartiality of Muslim Judges! ”
There has never been such a determined onslaught by the media against any candidate.
America, including the government.
So, if a white judge belonged to a group called “The Race,” which advocated for race-based solutions to what it viewed as race-engendered historical crimes against Caucasians by African-Americans, you’d think it perfectly fitting for him or her to sit in judgement of a Black Panther? You wouldn’t want to perhaps find a judge without prima facie partiality?
Oh, thats just perfect.
Everyone who criticizes Trump is a Democrat. No exceptions.
This is not my goal. I’m an extremist, a Constitutional conservative. Can you figure out what my goal might be?
I want to tunnel out through sewage, stand up in the rain and head to Zihautanejo rather than play that game.
Trump has to play that game though and he is winning despite the great gnashing of teeth and appropriately queasy stomachs from the pundits.