I have no undying love or loyalty for Donald Trump, but his recent questioning of a judge, U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, involved in a legal case against him is really not such a major issue here. Is it … really?
I mean, yeah, Trump just opens his mouth and spouts off, to Hell with the damn devil to come. However, since when is it wrong to question the possible biased nature/affiliation of somebody involved in a court case against you? I mean, juries are chosen by both the prosecution and defense. (I’m currently on jury duty and just waiting for my designated number to be called and then questioned.)
When a verdict/sentencing comes through that some don’t agree with we always here something about the judge’s political affiliation/appointment, or “it was an all white jury … too many ‘sympathetic’ women on the jury”, etc. Barack Obama himself believes this nation’s police “act stupidly” at every turn. The democrats, MSM, and Obama constantly chastise the SCOTUS decisions … publicly, and even formally in the SOTU address on national TV.
So, it is wrong for Trump to make no bones about questioning this judge and his possible bias (because of differing ideology on the border issue), but it’s okay for everyone, for example, to be pissed (rightfully) about the judge in California and demand something be done to him for giving the college kid just 6 months for rape?
The more I hear this Trump scolding in the media, and by the GOP, the more I think it’s just more of a red herring being kept on the attention deck to reduce the attention to the fact the presumptive democrat nominee is HISTORICALLY the first POTUS candidate under FBI investigation and might be indicted. Even this…
Is democrat/MSM bullshit…
And even the pro-Hillary Politico knew it over a year ago: The Strange Tale of the First Woman to Run for President – Before Hillary Clinton, there was Victoria Woodhull.
“Glass Ceiling”, my ass.
And even worse, Hillary’s tenure as a legal eagle…
Former AG Alberto R. Gonzales: Trump has a right to ask if Judge Gonzalo Curiel is fair:
“If judges aren’t seen as impartial, the public will lose faith in the rule of law.”
Patrick J. Buchanan: The Donald & The La Raza Judge
And who is Curiel?
An appointee of President Obama, he has for years been associated with the La Raza Lawyers Association of San Diego, which supports pro-illegal immigrant organizations.
Set aside the folly of letting Clinton surrogates like the Post distract him from the message he should be delivering, what did Trump do to be smeared by a bipartisan media mob as a “racist”?
He attacked the independence of the judiciary, we are told.
But Presidents Jefferson and Jackson attacked the Supreme Court, and FDR, fed up with New Deal programs being struck down, tried to “pack the court” by raising the number of justices to 15 if necessary.
Abraham Lincoln leveled “that eminent tribunal” in his first inaugural, and once considered arresting Chief Justice Roger Taney.
The conservative movement was propelled by attacks on the Warren Court. In the ’50s and ’60s, “Impeach Earl Warren!” was plastered on billboards and bumper stickers all across God’s country.
The judiciary is independent, but that does not mean that federal judges are exempt from the same robust criticism as presidents or members of Congress.
Obama himself attacked the Citizens United decision in a State of the Union address, with the justices sitting right in front of him.
But Trump’s real hanging offense was that he brought up the judge’s ancestry, as the son of Mexican immigrants, implying that he was something of a judicial version of Univision’s Jorge Ramos.
Apparently, it is now not only politically incorrect, but, in Newt Gingrich’s term, “inexcusable,” to bring up the religious, racial or ethnic background of a judge, or suggest this might influence his actions on the bench.
But these things matter.
“I think that you don’t have any more trouble with what Trump said than when Sotomayor said that — when she was found saying in speeches that, quote, ‘A wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male,’” he said. “I don’t hear any criticism of that sort of comment by a justice of the Supreme Court.”
Indeed. But let us not forget, our leftist self-appointed overlords insist only they have any inkling of a right, and duty, to oppose, speak-out, criticize anything or anybody. The rest of us are to STFU … or else!