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
Which is what this is really all about. Trump is certain he’s going to lose, and like everything else in his life, everything and everyone inconvenient to him must be destroyed.
He’s already won; we’re talking about the judge and not the judgement.
While he has focused on this particular judge, Donald has said he couldn’t get a fair trial from any Mexican or Muslim judge.
So you are saying that every single attorney and judge in the united states, by virtue of their membership in the ABA is defacto biased and unqualified to serve in the positions they hold?
I’m awaiting the publishing of my post on the same topic but with a different focus.
Anyone who wants the promise of Ricochet fulfilled (where the contributor talks back in the comments) please come join the discussion there.
I would require Judges either quit or recuse themselves in cases where the Advocacy comes into play in the case or a defendant or plaintiff.
Yes. They have to play by the rules too.
I never said anything about attorneys. Attorneys by definition ARE advocates.
Judges have immense powers over us mere mortals. I expect them to be held to a very high standard.
By the standards some are taking with this, I wonder how on earth we could ever find a judge capable of presiding over Clinton’s trial (if it comes to that, please God!).
Given what the ABA has become, I would say that.
There are others who think the ABA should have a special say in who is qualified to serve on federal courts. Once upon a time that would have been a reasonable position.
Just send her to St Helena to live out her days. Worked so well the last time.
Over the weekend I was considering writing a post asking whether anyone thought that Trump’s attacks on Judge Curiel were justified or defensible. I decided against it for two reasons. First, my last few posts have led to conversations more acrimonious than I would have liked. Second, I didn’t think there would be many takers.
I’m more than a bit surprised at the degree to which Trump is being defended on this. Particularly so in the case of members who have vehemently protested that they think Trump is lousy and they’re just supporting him because he’s better than Hillary.
This issue has highlighted one of the reasons I think Trump would be so damaging as president. Once people make the decision to support him he becomes “their guy.” Consciously or unconsciously, they start to defend him for doing things they would strongly criticize in anyone else.
Thus far, this has primarily manifested itself on the personal side of things, but it’s already started on the policy front.
The truth or falsity of a statement is dependent on whether or not it is helpful to the cause.
I think there’s a term for that.
Ah, and what evidence do you have of Judge Curiel’s advocacy or how that advocacy affects his ability to render judgement in a class action fraud trial?
“Accusing him of being ‘Mexican'”? Is that an insult? The braw lads waving Mexiacan flags while destroying property and assaulting people outside Trump’s rallies seem to be quite proud of being Mexican. In fact, I believe their avowed goal is to “Make America Mexico Again”.
i certainly wouldn’t advise a private litigant client of mine to publicly accuse the judge in her case of bias, or attack the judge in any way. Most obviously, cuz: the judge is going to be deciding your case, you idiot!! But Trump isn’t a private litigant, or not only that–he’s a candidate for president whose status as a civil defendant is thus big news.
And what about His Honor? Since when does a judge decide to unseal discovery documents just to “get back” at a litigant who has made him mad? That this was an ill considered, vindictive decision is evidenced by the fact that he hastily had to order a lot of ’em re-sealed.
So….I don’t know, “despicable” is in the eye of the beholder.
I do wish Trump would start talking about the lawsuits against Laureate, the Clintons’ cash cow, instead.
Judges being members of advocacy groups? Happens all the time. For example, there is the Judicial Council of the National Bar Association, an organization for black attorneys. One of their goals: “the eradication of racial and class bias from every aspect of the judicial and the law enforcement process.”
I wouldn’t want one of these guys deciding a case about Donald Trump. He’s a rich white man, and these judges clearly think the system is biased in favor of such persons and against poor blacks. Especially if they find out Trump sent out these tweets:
Michael Medved opened up his program today with the claim that Justice Scalia was a member of numerous Italian-American groups.
Was one of them a group of racialist haters called La Pasta?
I haven’t been find the list, but it seems like Scalia, if not a member, was a supporter (he gave numerous speeches, btw wikipedia does make the claim that Justice Alito is a member) of the Knights of Columbus.
To show how things can come full circle, the Knights of Columbus fought hard against Catholic persecution – in Mexico.
Knights=anti-Muslim. Columbus=anti-Native American. It’s a twofer!
From wiki…
The name of Columbus was also partially intended as a mild rebuke to Anglo-Saxon Protestant leaders, who upheld the explorer (a Catholic Genovese Italian working for Catholic Spain) as an American hero, yet simultaneously sought to marginalize recent Catholic immigrants. In taking Columbus as their patron, they were expressing their belief that not only could Catholics be full members of American society, but were instrumental in its foundation.[17] McGivney had originally conceived of the name “Sons of Columbus”, but James T. Mullen, who would become the first Supreme Knight, successfully suggested that “Knights of Columbus” would better capture the ritualistic nature of the new organization.[18]
Interesting how the fight was for assimilation, not separatist or Reconquista, like La Raza.
That’s why we Italians are just white people now.
No one screams historic! when a person with an Italian name is appointed to something nowadays.
http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-02-15/scalias-appointment-resonated-all-way-italy
Good point. But we still never had a President :-)
When Giuliani was running I don’t recall a great deal being made about “the first Italian President.”
Plus I didn’t support him anyway.
It’s been a good day for clicking “Like.” Thanks, Ricochet.
So what? He’s a part of their legal support team . . . being a lawyer that sort of makes sense doesn’t it? Are JAGs not part of the military?
Irrefutable for finishers. And you’ve not identified a single inaccuracy in anything.
That’s not a hard bar to get over, but good for him nonetheless. He says he’s indifferent to a Hillary Presidency. It is not possible to be both conservative and indifferent as to whether Hillary is President or Trump is President.
By November 8, very few voters will fail to grasp that this Presidential contest—like all before—is a choice between better and worse. That dimension breaks along a conservative / non-conservative axis. As best we can understand our choice right now, there’s no escaping this logic.
Interestingly, this entire brouhaha about La Raza and the Judge does not change the choice just outlined by one iota. Either side can be completely right or completely wrong about Trump’s comments regarding the Judge, about the Judge’s bias, etc. As far as the choice for a more or less conservative next President, it does not matter. If conservatism is your priority you’ll vote for Trump. If it isn’t your priority, you might do something else.
There is an important distinction between being indifferent and uninterested.
I’m as interested in this election as the most avid Trump or Hillary supporter, but I am indifferent to the outcome (at this point) because I can’t determine which of them is worse for the country. I really can’t. I’m not just saying that. And most of the people whom I respect are in the same pickle, although most lean away from Trump, even though they are conservative to their core.
In this light, as I look for evidence every day that Trump could be presidential, as he has promised, and that he is not going to do stupid things that will end up causing more harm than Hillary would do by just being Hillary, his remarks about the judge make a great deal of difference.
It’s not an accusation. It’s a fact. The judge admits he’s part of La Raza’s legal support team, so why do you try to deny it? It’s not a game plan, it’s just questions the answers to which you find unhelpful to your purposes so you change the subject.
Do you have evidence that he has done legal work on behalf of NCLR?
I don’t doubt your sincerity and I can’t imagine why anyone would. What’s important is you frame it—in my view correctly—as a choice between better and worse. No one can answer that question without at least implicitly asking “compared to what and with respect to what?” As far as I can tell you are asking better or worse “for the country” on undefined dimensions. It’s possible Trump is more conservative yet worse for the country on any number of dimensions. I keep asking someone to paint that word picture . . . I don’t see Hillary being better on any dimension. But hey, my mind is open to word art . . . how is a Hillary Clinton administration on any dimension likely to be “better” than a Trump Administration? Based on the past few days, some apparently think that b/c Hillary is very unlikely to question the impartiality of a judge due to his affiliation with racialist groups (unless the racialized view is pro-white), that makes her better. That seems to me very silly on its face, but let’s hear the argument.