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
There is something incredibly stupid about voting for someone who promises to secure the border by sprinkling pixie dust on it and waving a magic wand. If the problem has been that Republican candidates have failed to keep their promises, then it is incredibly stupid to vote for a guy who makes the most unrealistic promises ever seen.
Yeah, and when Congress doesn’t vote for his impossible promises, he’ll got on Twitter and call them names. Brilliant strategy!
Politicians all make promises and break them. Sometimes on purpose and sometimes because they find that they just can’t deliver what they promised no matter how hard they try. I wouldn’t hold the latter against them.
But I’m not worried too much about any of that. I’m worried that we might elect a president who is unhinged. We might give a great big child the power to do enormous harm because 1) he doesn’t’ know what he’s doing, 2) he thinks he is oh so smart, and 3) he allows his emotions to control his actions. This is so unprecedented that there is no way to quantify the risk.
There’s nothing more unhinged than thinking the GOPe will ever get serious about immigration control or border security.
How about believing Trump would actually be any better?
I can think of at least two: “Donald Trump is an honest man,” and “Donald Trump is a conservative.”
You have the choice you have . . . I think you are saying you’ll take Clinton over Trump. Is that right?
Be any better than Hillary? I think you are saying Hillary is the better choice for President. Do I have that right?
So, you have a choice between Clinton and Trump. You’re going to choose Clinton?
No. At present I don’t think I can vote for either one.
Mike, it’s interesting that no one has actually refuted you. They just respond with something reflecting how much they dislike or don’t have confidence in Trump. I think that is backhanded confirmation of your point.
I also think that if you had to boil the whole Trump phenomenon down to one thing, it’s precisely what you’ve hit on. If there had been a scintilla of seriousness from the GOP regarding securing the border and fixing immigration, Trump never would have gained steam.
So, I think one of the delicious ironies in this melodrama is Trump haters blaming voters—especially voters who watch reality TV. Right, it’s voters’ fault for wanting a secure border. Who the hell do they think they are? They should know better then to want something the Left isn’t inclined to give them!
You know what else never gets refuted, not even by Hillary?
No Borders, No Nation.
So it’s a tie as to which is worst, right? You are saying there’s no meaningful difference between them, so the hell with it. Not trying to put words in your mouth . . . I don’t know how else to interpret your position.
The Solution – Poem by Bertolt Brecht
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
To hell with it is not quite right. I love this country with all my heart. But these are two monsters and I can’t vote for either one. I’d rather that others decide which poison we all take, to mix my metaphor.
This is sad, that you know of no other way to interpret that position when it has been explained by many people, many times.
Well, I meant ‘to hell with voting’ not ‘to hell with the country.’
At any rate, I had it right—you see them as equally poisonous and therefore you’ll sit this one out and let others decide which poison kills us.
I just have great difficulty understanding how a guy who says he’ll regain control of our borders and immigration (and seems credible on this commitment, although we can’t know given his whole schtick is making deals) can possibly be a worse bet than someone who promises to continue manipulating our demographics in order to lock in her far Left agenda.
Maybe you can help me decipher this seemingly self-defeating stance? How do your values ‘
win‘ not lose with Hillary in charge?This certainly seems hard to square with Ricochet’s Center-Right ethos, unless the “Right” part of that formulation is a misnomer.
And you’re complaining? How could you shine so if we were all as brilliant as you?
Our values have already lost.
The question MWTA and I are asking is how do our values win with Trump in charge. He and I and many others have concluded that they don’t, and when we ask Trump defenders to explain it to us, they provide nothing. They just shout, “Hillary!” at us and expect that to be sufficient.
We agree this is a horrible choice between two terribly flawed candidates, but I don’t think I’m merely shouting “Hillary.” I’m assessing likely outcomes.
There is no chance Hillary will do anything that promotes conservative values, conservative policies, etc. Hillary is so bad that Trump needs only a tiny probability of doing something that promotes conservative goals to be the better option.
For example, if Trump does just 10% of what he has promised with respect to border security and immigration he will be a vast improvement over what Hillary intends for this country. She will not in any way moderate Obama’s border and immigration policies . . . more likely, she doubles down.
Similarly, Trump’s SCOTUS picks are never going to be worse than Hillary’s and are almost certainly going to be much better.
Those are both huge issues, but you can go down a long list of topics and similarly conclude the probability is we will have better outcomes for conservatives with Trump.
As unpleasing as Trump may be as President, if we stay focused on likely outcomes I think the choice is clear.
I don’t agree that immigration is the only issue that matters, though it matters a great deal. The constitution matters. Free trade matters (to me). All the personal characteristics of a good man matter. Not handing over the reins of government to a rabble rouser matters. Maintaining the NATO alliance matters. Having a semblance of intellectual depth to understand complicated questions foreign and domestic matters.
I’ve been saying for a year that I could vote for any Republican but Trump. It’s still true. I can’t vote for Trump because I can see him leading the country into catastrophe. I can’t vote for Hillary for the same reason.
It’s not the only issue that matters, as I think my reply to UF makes clear. But it’s a dramatic issue that makes the contrast between the candidates blazingly clear.
Hillary is worse on Constitutional issues, so how does not voting for Trump demonstrate this “matters” to you?
Fair trade matters to me and Trump will prioritize Fair over Free. The question is, does Hillary’s Free Trade stance outweigh all the negative effects she’d have on other priorities?
Hillary’s character flaws are far deeper than Trump’s, no? Why/how does Trump’s character rate below Hillary’s in your view?
Having gifts and using them wisely are two different things. How well has Hillary used her gifts when in leadership positions? Abandoning missile defense program? Russian reset? SOFA fail? Muslim Brotherhood/Egypt? Libya campaign? Benghazi? I can go on.
Not voting is choosing Hillary, in my view, since Democrat electoral advantage is only overcome by higher center-right turnout. Obviously that’s your privilege…hope you’ll reconsider.
If Trump is in favor of fair trade, that’s yet another reason not to vote for him.
Except “Trump is in favor of fair trade” is not a reason; it’s a statement. What reason is there for preferring unfair trade to fair trade? Is that reason likely to garner more or fewer votes?
The term “fair trade” has been used by Democrats for years to mean “no trade.” It is a code word for protectionist policies that favor unions and other insider groups with political influence. Maybe you are using that term to mean something else. If so, you’ll have to tell me what it means to you, before I could consider getting behind it.
Yup. Fair trade always means politicized trade.
It’s true that “Free Trade” and “Fair Trade” are both bumper stickers with lots of manipulative meaning attached from all sides. Trade is a huge topic and I don’t claim expertise. Here’s a summary from Trump himself:
That’s a reasonable starting point, in my view. Let’s ask the Anti-Trump Free Traders: does China use illegal barriers to disadvantage American companies? If so, shouldn’t we address that through better negotiating?
Other pertinent questions: is Hillary going to address unfair trade more effectively than Trump? Were establishment GOP candidates addressing fair trade or did it take the outsider Trump to make it a serious part of the GOP agenda?
Trade deals result from a process that is “political.” So, all trade is politicized. You imply only one side is and that “free trade” has no politicization attached to it. Is that really what you mean? What example would you use to show Free Trade as free from politics?
An example that doesn’t involve tariffs, import duties, export subsidies and credits, taxpayer-backed loans, etc.
So, you don’t have an example. You have words. No example. That’s because what you are imagining is as real as unicorns. There’s no such thing as a politics-free Trade deal for the simple reason that a Trade deal is a political document. As far as who can and will get elected POTUS in 2016, you evidently prefer the Left’s Free Trader to the Right’s Fair Trader. Now you know why middle class wage earners like Trump. He’s got their back, whereas you and the Left only give them the shaft.
Some trade is a lot freer than others, though. As far as what I “evidently” favor, it’s a lot more evident to you than it is to reality. But if you like making stuff up, go ahead as long as you stay away from slander and libel.