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
The responses from Trump supporters are pretty unconvincing.
On the first two pages all I got was an irrelevant attempt at moral equivalence (Basil Fawlty) and the tired old claims that Trump opponents have a “He racist! He racist! He racist!” vocal tic (Tom Riehl).
How on earth does your analogy apply? A court case against a fraudulent operator justifies “Bam, in your face”?
This is strong-man worship of the worst kind.
Well done, Richard. The man is an embarrassment, and the Republican party should exercise its power as a republican institution and remove him.
You reveal a lot with your one-way ratchet. Are the two groups affiliated? Is there even the slightest affiliation, or even mere commonality in their name? Have they ever shared a conference room? Held a meeting together? Has any person ever been a member of both groups? Have the groups ever expressed views that are similar on any topic whatsoever? Are there friendships among members in both groups?
Any of those infractions is sufficient for elite condemnation if the group is white and racialist. Why shouldn’t it be sufficient if it’s Latino and racialist?
Jamie asked how I can call this post a fact free diatribe when I don’t know the facts. Richard Epstein said he did not know the either. Yet he assumed the judge was innocent and posted an emotional,, dishonestly straw man filled
rant.
Also…..saying you can’t get a fair trial from a particular “Mexican” judge is not the same as saying you can’t get a fair trial from any “Mexican” judge. Jamie, you andR Epstein are smart enough to see the difference if you choose to. But that requires honesty.
Thanks for being more honest than your fellow travelers. If your view is there’s equivalence then you have nothing to do with conservatism, which is different from what the others contend.
So, since you have to pick one or the other, you’ll toss a coin? Stay home?
The judge is not a member of NCLR.
Prof Epstein admitted incomplete knowledge of the facts of the case before the judge, he has at least read the statements by Mr Trump and researched the judges background. You have done neither. Give me a break, Jojo.
I’m willing to bet that Valiuth knows and cares more about conservatism than Donald Trump ever will.
To my knowledge, Judge Curiel is not a member of NCLR. He is, however a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. Though this organization does not appear to be an official affiliate of NCLR — it is not listed on NCLR’s list of affiliates and does not describe itself as such — there’s both the obvious name overlap and the fact that NCLR is listed under the “Community” links on SDLRLA site in the right sidebar.
If Trump had focused his comments on this, I imagine he’d have had reason to call for Curiel’s recusal through a motion (I’m not saying it would or should win on the merits; #NotALayer). Also, how a legal organization can call itself “The Race” without getting called on it is beyond me and I’m instantly opposed to any organization that’s steering traffic to NCLR.
However, this is not what Trump did. He made it about Curiel’s ethnicity — accusing him of being “Mexican” — and sprayed a full magazine of ammo in the judge’s general direction. Then, when the gun-smoke cleared, he complimented himself that one of bullets hit the target (though hardly a bullseye).
This isn’t “Fishtown tactics” or fighting back; it’s just despicable. If this is how Trump acts when he’s just the nominee, God only knows how he’ll act as president.
Leaving aside the issue of identity politics in the courts, I would generally advise a client who was on the verge of a major trial to avoid saying things to infuriate the judge. If the client is too stupid to follow that advice, then so it goes. I haven’t ever actually had a client who was that stupid, but I’ve never had Trump for a client.
However, this should be a bit discouraging for those Trump cheerleaders who assure us that he will find the best people to advise him and will follow their counsel. I’ve been laughing at that narrative for months now, and here we see again that Trump is incapable of taking advice. He says and does whatever pops into his head. If you have been counting on Trump to surround himself with “top people,” who will offset his astounding ignorance, this episode should really make you stop and think.
I don’t have to pick either. I will skip voting for president and let everyone else decide which poison to swallow. I will vote down ballot.
Your points are well taken. Clinton and the left are awful, agreed. However, to me the choice is not binary as it appears to be to you. I would not vote for either Clinton or Trump. Both are horrible candidates. Each would make an incredibly bad president. We have had useless idiots in office, but rarely anyone who could be called evil. I find both Trump and Hillary meet that definition. The degree to which each fits that description is irrelevant, neither is fit for the presidency, and neither will get my vote.
That’s how I’m handling it, too. But I don’t neglect to remember that it’s the GOPe who made it come down to this.
Bill Clinton, not Mr. Laureate…and no, he’s running for First Mister.
So you deem the choice ‘not binary’ since you have the third option not to vote?
Hillary Clinton will destroy the country. Hyperbole?
Donald Trump will destroy the country. Hyperbole?
Reasonable people can disagree.
This is true. From my perspective, most of the altercations here come about because of someone answering sentence #2 with “Yes, but of course that is hyperbole. C’mon man!”. That brings down the Establishment hammer of the “Empire” upon the offending poster.
It is what created the Rabble Alliance. In my humble opinion.
I am not particularly enthralled with the old line GOP either. But it wasn’t them who cause the problem. It was the voters who continued to return elitists to office. It reminds me of the attitude towards attorneys, they are all lousy crooks, except for mine.
The option to not vote or to vote Libertarian or some other party still exists, though the most likely option at this time is the first. It is a choice, and it gainsays the idea of a binary decision.
The voters didn’t vote for them because they were elitists, but because the GOPe deliberately misrepresented themselves and their intentions. I blame the GOPe for their role in this.
Sure, voters could have dug deeper and learned more about the people they were voting for rather than succumb to the wiles of the GOPe, but I blame the GOPe.
You reveal a reasonable amount by going on the offensive when it’s pretty clear that you did not have your facts straight to begin with. You accused the judge of being a member of a group violently opposed to Trump’s immigration policies when you were rationalizing Trump’s attacks on the previous page. The judge is not a member of that group. Now, having realized your mistake, it appears that the game plan is to pose unanswered questions in an attempt to obscure the original misinformation.
No, he is the member of an affiliated group who provides services to illegals.
Advocacy no Caucasian judge would ever get away with without a recusal.
The group merely links to the website and neither NCLR nor San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association claim affiliation.
Go read the last item in their mission statement and tell me a Federal Judge should be a member.
A Caucasian judge who was a member of the White Race Lawyers association would get challenged every damn day.
Not true for starters.
And my point goes more to a vocal Trump supporter’s failure to acknowledge an inaccuracy than the judge’s membership in an ethnically-based bar association.
Are you at all aware of the structure of the legal profession or how it works?
Here is the website of the American Bar Association:
http://www.americanbar.org/aba.html
Right there at the top? Advocacy. I guaranty you that every single Judge in the country is a member.
Here is the Womens Lawyers Association of Los Angeles:
http://www.wlala.org/?page=3
They advocate on behalf of womens issues and “equality”.
Do I think a lot of this advocacy is bunk? Of course. Is it somehow beyond the pale for the legal profession? No.
I don’t excuse voters from responsibility. The GOPe exists because voters want it to. A majority like what they get for their vote, not a plurality as with Trump. Where I live, unfortunately, we are stuck with the majority vote from the Soviet Socialist Republic of Puget Sound. I can vote for an have helped in the election of a Republican representative from my district, I am not wild about him, but no one of real substance has run against him. When it comes to Senators and the governor, the SSRPS elects them over the rest of the state’s choices. For the rest, the argument is the equivalent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
It is beyond the pale for a Federal Judge. The fact that you think it is fine is your problem.
The ABA advocates for open access to legal counsel for all illegals detained. That is a political position. If someone steps across the border, we cannot ask them to step back, we now have to pay for a lawyer.
Great , full employment for the members of the bar association paid for by the rest of us.
I deal with lawyers and judges fairly extensively. Pardon me for not holding them in higher esteem than the people who pay for them.
Sorry if I missed anything, but I got to comment 60 before I had to throw in an idea: Instead of divining the judge’s bias/non-bias on the basis of external factors, how about we look at the quality of the decision he actually made and whether that is well reasoned and conforms to the facts (indicating non-bias)/or was arbitrary and contrary to the facts (indicating bias).
Here’s the decision: http://thetmca.com/files/2016/06/Order-Unsealing.pdf
Trump is insulting the judge because the judge decided that the Trump U information can be made public. Trump’s lawyers argued that they were trade secrets and should be protected. The judge decided that the materials (nearly identical to previously published materials) were not trade secrets and not subject to those protections.
If the reasoning is sound, it doesn’t make a [COC Violation] difference what the judge’s ethnicity is.