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
So, this finally prompted me to actually go back and watch Trump’s entire 11-minute tirade on the case, which you can find here. Geez, what a putz . . . but, I carefully noted what he actually said.
He attacks class-action lawyers and NY AG Eric Schneiderman (who really is a horrible left-wing political hack) and gives his version of the underlying facts in the case. He talks about Judge Curiel in three passages, totaling less than a minute. In two, while he denounces the judge for being biased and not recusing himself, he makes no mention of ethnicity. He prominently mentions Curiel was appointed by Obama and, as best I can decipher the usual Trumpian word salad, that appears to be the basis on which he claims bias and why the judge should recuse himself.
The third passage is when he makes this remark about the judge:
So, that’s what we’re arguing about and does anyone have any idea what that last sentence is referring to? Everytime I listen to this guy, my head starts to hurt.
He makes no mention of La Raza, immigration or the wall.
Again, if you want to criticize the judge’s membership in La Raza, go ahead.
That’s not what Trump did.
In your analogy it’d be like saying that no white man at all can sit in judgement of the Black Panther.
Not a terribly flattering word picture for Hillary . . . I’ll stick with Trump. Any other takers?
Huh?
If you’re not 100% behind Trump then you’re obviously satisfied with the progressive status quo, completely unaware of the danger posed by Hillary Clinton, and unwilling to fight for America.
Or that’s what the Trump supporters keep telling me, anyway.
White identity politics isn’t an accusation of racism.
Richard,
Yes, Trump should not have done what he did. He is getting his hardball on the job training. Of course, Obama was untrainable and made the same insane mistakes for 8 years lying his way through. Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton is single-handedly responsible for bringing Justice to a halt at the Justice Dept. This woman shouldn’t be President, this woman should never have been Secretary of State, this woman should never have been in the Senate. This woman belongs in jail and you and everyone else with an IQ above 98.6 knew it.
Where is the screaming outrage?! How many idiot news reports can I hear about her messaging and her style when there is a mountain of evidence available about major federal felonies she has committed in office.
Yes, yes another Trump outrage, yawn. When does the monster in the pantsuit get indicted?
Regards,
Jim
Yeah, it is what Trump did. It may not be exactly how he said it . . . too bad; he hasn’t spent his life parsing every syllable. He’s rough and real in speech, not manicured and powdered like you prefer. No one much cares since he speaks to a real issue that is at the heart of our cultural suicide. Pretty much every sentient being with a lick of commonsense knows exactly what Trump was expressing—the judge falls short of our legal norm for appearing unbiased in criminal cases. Trump just doesn’t think a judge should get a pass because his racially bigoted group is comprised of Latinos. You disagree?
That’s actually not what Trump was claiming in the 11 minute clip. He did not say the judge was biased because he was Latino. As near as I can tell, his problem according to Trump was that he was an Obama nominee.
Only if you judge people by their race and not as individuals.
Nope, we should turn their own premises against them. If we have to support policies that favor ethnicity X in order to win the approval of ethnicity X, then it’s logically consistent to carry that premise to its logical conclusion: a judge of ethnicity X is likely to oppose a politician who takes positions that are strict on ethnicity X.
Sorry, this whole issue has moved way beyond factual reality so let’s not trifle with that! }:-)
Trump’s mis-attribution of the judge’s nationality has been (to put it mildly) WIDELY interpreted as meaning Trump objects to him BECAUSE of his ethnic heritage. That’s what I’m addressing.
Is Mr. Laureate running for President?
No. Billary is.
Most of us on Ricochet are conservatives. I certainly am.
Many of us on Ricochet are Republicans, if only by default. Such am I. I make no apologies for being in the party of Eisenhower, Reagan, Cheney, Giuliani and Kemp.
Many of us on Ricochet are Trumpsters. I am not. I have, however, tried to accept his inevitability.
Those of us who are unhappy with the Washington surrender crowd had some hope a year ago. We had our chance, with talent like Walker, Perry, Cruz, Jindal; and we blew it with the Donald. The Donald, for Crissakes, the weakest candidate in history, when the POTUS was ours for the taking.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and destroying the Republican party is leaving one. A big one.
So don’t complain to me, A-Squared, when Hillary becomes queen for life.
Thank you.
Never.
Wishing it won’t make it so.
I don’t know . . . Valerie and Michelle hate her more than I do, so I’m keeping hope alive.
Wishing for it is cheaper than a lottery ticket.
Yeah, but they both hate Republicans more than that.
WE (and by WE, I mean conservatives) are outraged in both cases. To choose to be selectively outraged makes us them.
Trump is the perennial victim. He is always being treated unfairly when for some reason he isn’t getting his way. He is a whiner. My old Scottish climbing partners would refer to him as a wanker. He is a three year old who has simply never grown up. If that is what you need for your revenge, it may be that you have more problems than he has.
His trial for Trump University will be judged by a jury of his peers. He has been very clear about that. If he can convince a jury that the charges against him have no foundation, he will be free and clear. Whining doesn’t prove is innocence or guilt. It just makes him that much more obnoxious.
As to the judge and Sotomayer (what the h… does she have to do with any of this? I would much rather have this man sitting on the Supreme Court than Sotomayer based on all that I have read about him and his judicial and prosecutorial experience. Bring her up is just blowing smoke which Trump supporters seem best at. I guess they get that from their hero.
I don’t want her replaced with someone less beatable. I just want Comey to resign in disgust and tell all when she doesn’t get indicted.
What’s the difference?
This post is a fact free diatribe. I did not hear Trump’s but it could not have been worse.
If Trump did not say he does not want Mexican judge- and I don’t believe he did- then it is dishonest to rant that we can’t expect to have a judge of our own race or culture.
Or political inclination, which was probably the only point Trump was making in bringing up ethic background. Ethnic. Hard to comment on phone.
From the WSJ on Friday,I am not sure that he could have been much clearer that he wants the judge to at least recuse himself, over his “Mexican heritage.”
Hmmm. Let’s tally this up a bit, shall WE?
Their selective outrage has meant WE conservatives shut out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave for 28 of the past 36 years. It’s meant a purposeful policy of politically and culturally destabilizing immigration. It’s meant stagnant middle-class wages, schools that teach gibberish but not how to read, same-sex marriage, transgender bathrooms, Obamacare, crony capitalism, a weaponized IRS, $20 Trillion debt, and $140 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. And more to come from another 8 years of Obama, perhaps.
But, hey, your moral purity is intact … we’ve got that going for us.
Maybe being a little bit more like them might be the last option WE have to save this Republic. Maybe.
Or maybe it’s just not worth it. Not if your moral vanity has to get sullied . . . I mean if you’ve got to rub up against the unwashed Trump? That’s just asking too much, huh?
Thanks for that additional info. As I mentioned above, the original 11 minute statement by Trump did not make those claims.
By the way, does anyone have any idea what Trump meant when he said after criticizing Curiel (see Comment 61, above):
Was he:
Talking about Mexicans in Mexico?
Talking about Mexicans in the US?
Talking about the Mexicans he is going to deport and then readmit via that “big, beautiful gate” in the Wall?
Just throwing out a random bunch of words?
Something else?