Trump vs The Judge...

[mjr]

Ok, we know Trump's statements about the judge in the Trump University case.

The judge supposedly has ties to La Raza.

But why are people complaining? If this were a different case and Trump were a minority and the Judge were white, with ties to "Honkeys-R-Us" or some sort of "white" group, people would be all up in arms. As much as people may like or hate Donald Trump, doesn't he have the right to complain about the judge? Or does he forfeit that right because...reasons (the so-called "White Privilege", I'd presume).

So why is it OK for minority groups to complain about white judges, but Whitey McWhiterson can't complain about a minority judge?

[KabeRinnaul]

The "La Raza" Judge Curiel has ties to is La Raza Lawyers of San Diego. It's an organization for lawyers associated with the Hispanic National Bar Association.

The "La Raza" Trump supporters are claiming Curiel has ties to is the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights group that has — in ways arguably inappropriate for the type of organization they are — been strongly opposed to the Trump campaign.

In interviews, Trump has effectively said that no Hispanic judge would treat him fairly because they would try to retaliate against him for his plans to build a border wall. He has also said he would consider any Muslim judge equally biased against him. The imagined La Raza "connection" came after the fact.

Trump is a bigot and a narcissist.

Also, amusingly, Judge Curiel's claim to an American heritage is just as strong as Trump's. Trump's father was born here, yes, but he was the son of two German immigrants who arrived around 1885-1900. His mother emigrated from Scotland in 1930 and didn't become an American citizen until 1942. Salvador Curiel, the judge's father, came to America from Mexico and became a citizen in the 1920s. Francisca Curiel, his mother, emigrated and became a citizen in 1946.

At the absolute most, Trump's "American Heritage" beats Curiel's by about 30 years.

Finally, no, it's entirely acceptable for a white defendant to challenge the impartiality of a non-white judge who has ties to racially-charged political organizations (not that Curiel actually does), or for a defendant of color to do the same in response to a white judge. The thing is, when you have an issue like that, you have your attorney request a different judge be assigned to the case, or, in extreme circumstances, ask for a change of venue. You don't go and complain to the media while trying to stir up racial tensions.

[mjr]

The "La Raza" Judge Curiel has ties to is La Raza Lawyers of San Diego. It's an organization for lawyers associated with the Hispanic National Bar Association.

The "La Raza" Trump supporters are claiming Curiel has ties to is the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights group that has — in ways arguably inappropriate for the type of organization they are — been strongly opposed to the Trump campaign.

This is why I carefully chose the word "supposedly".

In interviews, Trump has effectively said that no Hispanic judge would treat him fairly because they would try to retaliate against him for his plans to build a border wall.

He has also said he would consider any Muslim judge equally biased against him.

He's not necessarily wrong, though. Is he?

Trump is a bigot and a narcissist.

That's entirely possible, but remember, we live in a world where you can be accused of being a bigot/racist/whatever just for pointing out certain things.

[HYHYBT]

That no Hispanic or Muslim judge could act impartially in this case? Surely yes, he's wrong about that.

And if he were right, if what he's said and done in matters totally unrelated to this case is so awful towards those groups that no member of them could be reasonably expected to handle the case fairly, well, that would hardly speak in his favor as a candidate, would it?

If he's wrong, that he's acting this way is a negative. If he's right, it's even more of one.

[NecCat]

Trump has repeatedly asserted that Latinos love him, and that hispanic americans are more upset by illegal immigration through Mexico than any other group, therefore hispanic americans are in full support of his 'build a wall' plan. He should be welcoming an american judge with a hispanic ethnicity, since they love him so much.

I suspect this is just another opportunity for him to stomp his feet and yell Mexicans at the press some more, not a real legal issue with this judge. Not sure why it's a mystery when people complain about assholes acting like assholes publicly.

If this were a different case and Trump were a minority and the Judge were white, with ties to "Honkeys-R-Us" or some sort of "white" group, people would be all up in arms.

I would hope people would be up in arms over any judge with ties to any racial supremacists groups or similar. The race of the judge would not be an issue in that case. I haven't read any articles mentioning any ties to racial supremacist or racial hate groups by Judge Curiel, so it's not an apt comparison.

As much as people may like or hate Donald Trump, doesn't he have the right to complain about the judge? Or does he forfeit that right because...reasons (the so-called "White Privilege", I'd presume).

No, he absolutely has the right to complain about the judge, that's one of the rights of an american citizen. As with many other complaints about being allowed freedom to say things, it doesn't give him the freedom from consequences of his speech.

It would be a terrible precedent to allow him to change judges now, it would become sound legal strategy to publicly humiliate any judge assigned to your case to the point you could claim they would no longer be impartial, and keep on doing it until you were assigned one you were sure would rule in your favour. What if you just humiliated all the judges and then claimed there was no qualified person who could be impartial and judge your case. The whole court system would become chaos. (More chaos - if that works as a concept)

[wolfie]

He has also said he would consider any Muslim judge equally biased against him.

He's not necessarily wrong, though. Is he?

I'd imagine that any judge who is NOT a member of the KKK would be equally biased against him.

[AccountingDrone]

Also, amusingly, Judge Curiel's claim to an American heritage is just as strong as Trump's. Trump's father was born here, yes, but he was the son of two German immigrants who arrived around 1885-1900. His mother emigrated from Scotland in 1930 and didn't become an American citizen until 1942. Salvador Curiel, the judge's father, came to America from Mexico and became a citizen in the 1920s. Francisca Curiel, his mother, emigrated and became a citizen in 1946.

At the absolute most, Trump's "American Heritage" beats Curiel's by about 30 years.

Fine, I have been a registered Republican since 1979, my family has been here since the 1600s, I am so freaking white I damned near glow in the dark. I would be perfectly acceptable to him ... except I consider him bugshit nuts and would throw his ass in the slammer on multiple counts of fraud, mail fraud and other counts and throw away the key.

He really wouldn't want me sitting on his case.

[wolfie]

Would be interesting to see what happens ifwhen he keeps opening his yap. 30 days for contempt of court in the middle of the election campaign should cramp his style.

[KabeRinnaul]

Would be interesting to see what happens ifwhen he keeps opening his yap. 30 days for contempt of court in the middle of the election campaign should cramp his style.

You'd think so, but in the end, not much would change.

Those who mock and refuse to support him would have new reasons to mock and not support him.

Those who support him would call it proof that Trump was right and the judge really is biased, and thus the narrative would not be contradicted.

And the Republican party would do their best to distance themselves from him for the sake of their future political careers, without distancing themselves so much that they risk letting the Democrats win one.

The answer to most "What If?" questions in American politics is "The media exploits the news, the status quo fails to meaningfully change, and everyone becomes more entrenched."

[mjr]

Those who support him would call it proof that Trump was right and the judge really is biased, and thus the narrative would not be contradicted.

Not this case specifically, but this is a good example of why I brought up Scott Adams' blog about Trump's persuasion skills.

Think about it. Like him or not, he's set this up as a "win-win" for himself. No matter what happens, Trump wins. Or at least some people will be persuaded as such.

If he loses the case, it's exactly what Kabe says. It's "proof" that Trump was right all along. If he wins the case, well, he wins the case. He won't get any supporters out of winning the case, so that part is a wash.

So:

-- Trump loses the case, he wins.
-- Trump wins the case, he wins.

It's a perfect setup for a win-win. It's a chess move.

[s_stabeler]

sort of like the most recent crap the Leave campaign in the referendum are pulling. there were technical problems with the website to register to vote, so the deadline was extended. the Leave campaign are claiming the extension was an attempt to rig the vote by encouraging more young people to vote, who tend to support staying in.
a) that is actually an argument in favour of extending the deadline- you want as accurate a picture of what the country actually wants as possible. (which makes me wonder if the technical problems weren't engineered by the Leave campaign, but I tend to be cynical))
b) had they not extended the deadline, the Leave campaign would be complaining that the government let the technical problems prevent people from voting,

Ultimately, it's admittedly a canny political move, but an underhanded one.

[mjr]

I get where you're coming from. But I assume they didn't just say, "You have 45 minutes to register". I'm assuming this ability was there for days or weeks. I guess the young there just want to wait until the last minute.

[s_stabeler]

it's more that there has been a massive campaign to get people to register to vote in the referendum if they're not already on the Electoral Roll, and the technical problems were preventing people from- so, the deadline was extended to be fair on those who wanted to register. That, and it was specifically the allegation of vote-rigging by allowing more time for people to register that I am unhappy about. It's not as if the government granted the ability to vote in the referendum to anyone not previously entitled to vote in it- so it's not exactly vote-rigging.

basically, I'm irritated at the Leave campaign effectively calling a measure designed to help ensure the referendum actually reflects what the country wants vote-rigging, which is where a vote has a pre-determined result.