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
If your analysis is going to pretend there’s no context to Trump’s phraseology, you might be more persuasive to some if you exclude that context from your quoted material. As it is, you’re disproved by the simple mechanism of making text bold.
This
Yes, so much moral preening. Sort of makes one sick to have to hear people suggest we should inject a little civility and morality into our politics.
Trump could play the tough guy role without being an ignorant ass. It would serve him much better and all of us who hate Hillary could get behind him, some holding our noses, for certain.
America isn’t just in decline because Reagan was the only conservative president since Coolidge, we’re in decline because we don’t play much of a part in any of the important institutions or the culture.
Newsflash: Donald J Trump isn’t going to change any of that.
The sickness is in the preciousness. The truly bizarre thing is your apparent conclusion that Bill and Hillary Clinton elevate the civility and morality of “our politics.” That level of delusion just makes me smile in wonder.
Most of the public view judges as tin gods who hold power over them, who are capable of acting in a dismissive and arrogant manner.
Do not assume the pearl clutching about insulting a judge is shared by 95% of the voters.
It’s my guess that he’s gonna build a big wall and majorly enforce the borders. My guess is also that other than deporting criminals ( beyond just illegals ) he is going to ask to register everyone and make tax payers of them , also scale back the welfare dependency that trains people to become democrats and abandon decent ethics.
Despite the outrage of victim groups the life of Latino-Americans will be elevated to the point where they or their children are proud to plainly say ,”I’m an American” In essence end under the table work some of which Helps some Latinos but economically hampers others.
Ive had some disagreements ( respectful) with fellow Trump voters about this but I bet he does something close to what I’m saying. We shall see when he’s president.
He may insist on a form of ‘touchback’, but it will be after two solid years of deportation of felons, killers and gang bangers every night on TV. First, make people feel safe, then they get less emotional.
Let me help you out here . . .
“If you’re not 100% behind Trump then you’re obviously more satisfied with the progressive status quo, probably
completelyunaware of the extent of the danger posed by Hillary Clinton, and apparently unwilling to fight for America.”It’s a choice between better and worse, not between good and bad.
Trump did indeed say that he could not get a fair trial with a judge of Mexican heritage.
How can you label something a fact free diatribe when you admit you don’t know the facts?
Why so certain of that? I expect he will pass the Gang of 8 bill and go out to the border put a shovel in the ground declare the start of the wall, and then do nothing else other than brag about how good the wall will be, which will be finished in 2456AD.
They don’t but neither does Trump. Hence the rock and hard place we find ourselves in. No matter who wins things deteriorate further. No one here makes excuses of the Clintons, why should we make excuses for Trump?
You’re thinking like a guy. Have you never seen a Girl Grudge go live fire? The Devil himself ducks out. To those two, Republicans are Switzerland . . . annoying but it often has its uses and you can just go around it.
I reject certainty except about the love of my wife. I merely put forth a guess on what I believe will happen based on my read of the people and the forces at play.
You can do the same.
So there’s equivalence . . . Trump or Clinton, equally bad result? That seems to be what you are saying. But I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
Note:
The CoC : Obscenities and vulgarities, even using various symbols for letters, or shorthand (e.g., text messaging abbreviations). Ricochet style is to use [expletive].He knows the judge, and that he is a Clinton supporter $$$$, knows that he is a first generation citizen with ties to his homeland, and is aware that he is being judged unfairly. So, he doesn’t express that in kind tones. Tough [expletive]. He is simply asking the judge to recuse himself, not rule arbitrarily in his favor. He thinks that the judge may be a wise latino. I expected better of you, MWTA.
Many in this community believe that the founders had much wisdom and would never have lowered themselves to such barbaric interpersonal insult, and that Trump is an outlier. Read history!
The current moral preening is revolting.
Care to tell the Paul Harvey rest of the story? He said he couldn’t get a fair trail from a judge of Mexican heritage who belongs to a racialist organization that’s violently opposed to his well-known Mexican border and Mexican immigration policies.
Just a little detail you left out. But, hey, you’ve got your narrative . . . party on!
“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.”
Yikes, a surprising admission from a contributor who I’ve always trusted, admired and respected.
Was this before or after he called a federal judge a “hater,” and said “what he is doing is a total disgrace”?
He is not asking the judge to recuse himself. That is done with a motion filed by his attorneys, not in the court of public opinion. He is not doing that (yet) because he knows that wouldn’t fly. Instead, he is trying to give himself cover for when he loses the case, and trying to inflame his supporters who always commiserate with how the whole world is rigged against Donald J. Trump.
After 8 years of Obama a large percentage of the federal judiciary will be Democrats. Any number will be second generation Americans, whose parents were immigrants. These are simply not reasons for recusal. As for Trump being “aware that he is being judged unfairly,” that just means he is losing. Whenever he loses, whether to Lying Ted or in court, it’s because he was cheated.
The only evidence that Trump offers that this judge is biased is that Trump doesn’t like some of his decisions. No appellate court would accept that as reason for recusal or overrule.
So, federal judges can’t be “haters”? They can’t be a “disgrace”? Is that your objective analysis? If you are a federal judge you are beyond reproach?
What term do you think would be applied to a white federal judge who belonged to a group called “The Race,” a name chosen precisely because it reflected the group’s racialist ideology and hatred of Latino culture?
Oh wait, let me guess . . . you can’t be racist if you’re a minority, right? Gosh, I always forget that cleaver intellectual Monopoly-card: ‘You go to jail, I pass Go and collect $200.”
Do you have a link to support this?
Here is his interview with Jake Tapper. He mentions his membership in San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association in passing but puts the emphasis on the mans heritage:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/06/03/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-judge-jake-tapper-full-interview-lead.cnn
One would think that if this was only about his membership in the disputed organization he wouldn’t mention the heritage and focus on the evidence of the mans political actions (of which there is virtually none by the way.) The judge also fought the Mexican Cartels and had a hit put out on him, but that is less important than his membership in a Bar Association which doesn’t even list him on their website.
Yes, and that is especially true about federal judges, who are accountable to no one.
You seemed to be concerned with painting a complete picture. I thought I’d help. My objective analysis is that only an intemperate [expletive] would call a sitting federal judge with a distinguished prosecutorial record a “hater” and a “disgrace,” but I understand that’s what makes Trump appealing to some. “Beyond reproach” is, obviously, a considerably less offensive standard.
And, BTW, you might want to check on what organization the judge actually belongs to.
Is there any actual evidence that this judge is acting unfairly other than Trump’s whining about it? Does anyone here have a link to legal analysis which says the Judge has acted improperly or in a biased manner?
Or are we just assuming the man is biased against Trump because he’s of Mexican heritage?
I understand what you’re saying, Axe Man, and you are nominally correct, but this issue is more nuanced than usual, given the giant political overtones. Should Trump just accept whatever happens? I’d fight too, dirty if need be. Fairness? Please…
So, your view is that a white judge belonging to a group called “The Race” that espoused white racialist views analogous to the Latino racialist views of La Raza, that would be fine and dandy to those in the Latino-American community? So long as the white judge wasn’t listed on the racialist web site, is that it?
And if a high profile Latino-American was going before that judge and felt there was an inherent lack of impartiality because of the white judge’s affiliation with an anti-Latino racialist group, you’d say “it’s impermissible to question the judge’s impartiality!”?
Can I have a glass of water to help swallow this Shinola?
What do 99.999% of litigants do when a couple of motions in their still pending case go against them? Do they go public with lengthy disquisitions on how the case is rigged and the judge is a disgrace?
What is Trump’s purpose in spending 11 minutes of a rally ostensibly about running for president to discuss his private litigation?
My answer is that he is expecting Clinton to use his civil fraud trial as the basis for negative campaign attacks, and so he is looking for ways to diffuse the effect of those attacks. He is trying to inoculate his supporters so that the attacks have diminished effect. Why, the system was rigged. I’m being railroaded. The judge is a disgrace. He’s a Mexican and I’m building a wall to keep Mexicans out. The lawyers for the plaintiffs are all crooked. The attorney general of New York was bribed by crooked lawyers to file a case against me.
Do you buy it? If so, he has succeeded.
I’ve seen no indication that the judge belongs to the National Council of La Raza. Since you’ve used the word “racialist” a couple of times (as well as “violently opposed” to Trump’s policies), I’m assuming that’s the group you’re referring to. If so, please check your source(s). As Jaime Lockett noted above, you appear misinformed.
Yes, I personally think things will be equally bad, but different, under either Hillary or Trump. I don’t want either to be in charge and I think both will further corrupt and degrade the nature of politics and decency in America.