Featured Post

Towards a Pro-America, Pro-West Foreign Policy

For years, I have written in this humble blog that Obama and his team have created an unprecedented foreign policy disaster. The disaster be...

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

The Donald and The Judge

Just a quick post on what political correctness and "identity politics" have wrought.

Donald Trump is in warm water for his comments on Gonzalo Curiel, the judge handling the lawsuit against Trump University. Trump, perhaps in a poor choice of words to say the least, questioned the judge's ability to be impartial in the case because of his Mexican ancestry and, of course, because Trump wants to build a border wall. First, let me say I don't understand why Trump talks about the Trump University case: nobody cares about it. There are many more important things to discuss. Second, it's probably not a good idea for a politician running for office to assert that a person of a certain ethnicity is incapable of being impartial (This applies, of course, only to Republicans; I'll get back to that). In sum, it is a silly dispute which has opened the floodgates to political correctness and allowed certain Republicans, e.g., Gingrich, Graham, Ryan, Kirk, to seek "strange new respect." Speaker Ryan went so far as to label Trump's comments "textbook racism."

OK, then, as somebody who intends to vote for Trump in November, do I wish this had not happened? Yes, I do but . . . what we actually have here is another classic example of progressive double standards. Let's look at the judge. His parents were Mexican nationals who arrived in the US via uncertain means, shall we say; he was born in East Chicago, Indiana making him an instant American citizen (anchor baby? Perhaps.) Could that background color his assessment of Trump? Isn't the whole progressive argument for diversity and affirmative action precisely that? The claim that certain groups bring a different perspective to issues? Let us turn to no less an authority than Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited favorably by the NY Times for saying just that, 
Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases. 
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor . . .
So a "wise Latina woman" . . . I see, I see.  So according to the progs, people of different ethnicities reach different conclusions on the basis of the same set of facts.  So, then, Trump who advocates a hardline on illegal migration, might just be right in questioning the interpretations by a judge who is here because of the sort of migration that Trump now wants to stop? Presumably, according to Sotomayor, Curiel's life experiences would lead him to be prejudice (literally) against Trump, no?

Let's go a little further. Curiel is a lifelong Democrat and owes his career to his hooks with the Democratic party. Curiel belongs to hispanic activist organizations, including the San Diego chapter of the La Raza Lawyers Association. In fact, La Raza gave a reception in Curiel's honor last month.

Judiciary Reception – RSVP today!

Jun 1, 2015 by 
Judiciary Reception – RSVP today!
Please join us for the
San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association Judiciary Reception!
Date: May 25, 2016
Time: 5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
Location: Klinedinst PC-501 W. Broadway, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101
RSVP to larazalawyers@gmail.com.
This year we are proud to be honoring Judge Gonzalo Curiel at our reception and recognizing him for his leadership and support to the community and to our Association!
Thank you to our sponsors: Golper, Sullivan & Rivera, GP & The Law Offices of Sergio Feria, APC
Now, I have seen some progs try to spin this all by saying that this La Raza is not the same as the other La Raza, and that THIS La Raza is apolitical . . . yeah, yeah. Go to this La Raza's Mission statement,

Mission Statement

Formed in 1979, with a handful of Latino attorneys, San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association (SDLRLA) has grown to represent over three hundred Latino and Latina lawyers practicing in San Diego County. SDLRLA is one of 18 affiliate bar associations of the California La Raza Lawyers Association, which serves several thousand Latino lawyers practicing in the State of California.
Our purpose is to advance the cause of equality, empowerment and justice for Latino attorneys and the Latino community in San Diego County through service and advocacy. We are dedicated to promoting diversity on both the bench and bar. We support law students with mentorship programs and scholarships.
Our members include current and former state and federal court judges, magistrates, referees, law professors, State Bar committee members, county bar board directors, government officials, elected officials, lawyers practicing in all specialty areas and law students.
Specifically, the goals of SDLRLA are:
• Increase the overall number of Latinos in the legal profession.
• Encourage and support Latino and Latina judicial candidates to apply to the bench
• Advocate for the promotion and retention of Latino and Latina attorneys and judicial officers.
• Improve the professional skills of our members through our certified MCLE programs.
• Provide for the professional and social interaction among our members and other organized bar associations.
• Improve the delivery and access of legal services to the county’s Spanish speaking community.
• Provide role models and mentoring to Latino youth through direct interaction with students and school districts.
• Strongly advocate positions on judicial, economic and social issues to political leaders and state and local bar associations that impact the Latino community.
In addition, it has an endorsement page which lists candidates that it endorses, and you can read up on all it's doing on behalf of "transgender" Latinos, etc. In other words, it's a classic leftist advocacy group.

Imagine a white judge who belonged to something called, say, the White Brotherhood, no that White Brotherhood, the other one . . . OK, OK, you get the point.

The judge should recuse himself.

26 comments:

  1. Correct. Libs just don't want to see it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The other interesting phenomenon is conservative Republicans lambasting Trump and saying he should just apply for recusal. He should but this is political and his instincts might be better than mine.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, I was actually a bit unhappy at potentially having to walk back my strong-but-not-wholehearted support for Trump until I realized this guy was a La Raza member.
    Trump can claim he's being unfairly treated by the court, and when looking for reasons why this might be, the judge's open political affiliations are fair game, imo.
    I'm not sure why Trump didn't bring this up explicitly at the beginning, so I'm wondering if this was a baiting exercise to get the media all in an uproar before pointing out the obvious and letting it all subside (after months of hearing about 'Trump University')

    I have a feeling Trump would more than encourage journalists to write about Trump University, as it roughly goes like:
    reporter1: "Trump University did X"
    reporter2: "Trump University did Y"
    reporter3: "Trump said something horrible about our reporting on Trump University"
    pollster-to-voter: "Who are you going to vote for?"
    voter: "Uhh.. Trump? Is there anybody else running?"

    I think there is such a thing as harmfully bad PR, but it's probably got to be far worse than the media thinks it is...

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
  4. I get every point of your post, and generally agree. You are absolutely, screamingly right that black and Hispanic racism is too often given a pass. Heck, I'm tempted to form a White Teachers' Association (open to non-White sympathizers and well-wishers, of course; and without a white supremacist plank--merely looking out for our group), since it seems we white or not too "off-white" folks are being pressured into becoming another pressure grouup of what Theodore Lowi called Interest Group Liberalism.

    However, I am interested in the Trump University Case to see whether it is a Trump venture that fizzled or a damaging character issue (even if Shrillary Shroooooooo long ago won the UNpopularity contest with Uncle Kepha).

    I look at this election and see plenty of character issues with both candidates (a Shrillary Shrooo indictment isn't going to happen under the O maladministration, period), and it bothers me deeply. It's one reason why I will hold my nose when voting for The Donald if he has even a snowball's chance in Hell in my deep indigo state. But I wish to stress holding the nose.

    As for Hizzoner Curiel, we really ought to do a lot more research into the backgrounds of judges hearing high-profile cases, and publicize them. While I am disgusted by the coming presidential race, and recognize the failures and foibles of Congress, I disagree that the judiciary is the "least dangerous branch", and shsould be subjected to intense scrutiny. I also strongly suspect the coming few years may well show why Prof. Robert L. Clinton, formerly of Southern Illinois U/Carbondale, was of the mind that the Framers believed that impeachment was to be used often.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All impressions I have read is that it was business gone bad. I've seen multiple *really* sleight-of-hand mixed quotes... to the effect of 'the playbook tells sellers to encourage people to "leverage credit cards for investment funds"... like more Trump University courses'... where the non-quoted words are just pulled out of someone's posterior.
      That doesn't appeal to me and makes me think the TU thing was probably an attempt to capitalize on image, but not intended as a scam. I can envision discussions in the range of honesty to scandalous, and nothing's come up thus far to make a clear distinction.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  5. A further comment, from both an old consular scut and current social studies teacher.

    Before we get too worked up about the issue of anchor babies, keep in mind that we do have the Fourteenth Amendment, which enshrines birthright citizenship (even if John Marshall Harlan, scion of slaveholders, said it really only applied to the offspring of the freedmen in his 1896 US v. Wong Kim Ark dissent). To do away with birthright citizenship, we would have to go through the deliberately difficult process of Constitutional Amendment; and are we really sure we know what we would put in its place to define citizenship by birth?

    Further, with both my sons holding Consular Reports of Birth Abroad rather than Stateside b/c, and knowing lots of other Americans in their situation, I had no problem marking my ballot for the Hon. Mr. Cruz of Texas (a Latino far wiser and better than a certain WAS[P--?] man-woman-bitch-goddess, as one of her fellow feminists once called her, whom a lot of us could name).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 14th was never meant for birthright citizenship. Author Bingham's auxiliary writing excluded foreigners, diplomats, American Indians, and aliens from it. The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction of" means total jurisdiction, not temporary geographical jurisdiction. The before excluded group only come under the latter. The former slaves didn't have or even know what countries they may have belonged to.

      Congress reversed the exclusion of Native Americans this barred birthright citizenship group in 1924. Nothing was done for the other groups.

      Visiting diplomatic families aren't supposed to be awarded citizenship. However, the abuse of the 14th has only increased over the years, probably due to certain political interests. The Wong Kim decision began a slippery slope under the Grey court. The Chinese subjects were here as legal residents, but now we have every illegal crosser or visa overstay, and "birth tourists" to cope with.

      It should only take an act of Congress to clarify and restore the original meaning of the 14th. The "new Amendment" argument is a red herring. You might want to review some writings on this by Constitutional sources like Herb Titus and others.

      Delete
    2. @Anonymous/

      Mere facts, facts and more facts. Pickey, pickey pickey.. :)

      Delete
  6. I wish I could ask my late Uncle Luis for his views on this issue. Actually, as a Democrat he'll presumably be voting this time in spite of being defunct.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh the hell with it. I give up. America is ruined from top to bottom with political correctness and corruption, so much so that even the Amazing Diplomad can't avoid qualifying his remarks with, Well, of course I, ahem, don't approve, and, yes, I, well... uh wish that Trump hadn't said it, but, um... Does no one see that this !#$! is the Left's game?!! *They* are the ones that have perverted racial, ethnic and gender identities in the service of all-encompassing, uncompromising power. So excuse me if I don't give one rat's s--t about whether Trump called out some @$#! judge for being biased. Democrats are ALL biased. They are all corrupt, malignant, devious tyrants in waiting. And they have so infected everyone else that we run around intimidated and currying favor from these scoundrels. Wake up. No one is playing by the rules any longer except the damn, fool conservatives. Not judges, not prosecutors, not government officials, not Wall Street, not Main Street. No. One. We should be angry about the hypocrisy, angry about the deceit, angry about the evil. Trump should be applauded for at least pulling back the rotten, stinking tiles under which the cockroaches hide. Instead, we apologize to the cockroaches. To hell with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BRAVO! and scuttle into the scuppers you beastly vermin! No! I couldn't have said it any better Br'er Anon--Even with the fortifying benefit of a couple of stiff Manhattans, hold the fruit! Nor could I chastise Diplomad too harshly for his judicious and disarming preamble, offered with just a trace of his native tongue--diplospeak~~~ ;)
      On Watch~~~
      "Let's Roll"

      Delete
    2. Ok, Ok, guilty. I didn't make my point well. That point is that I want to see Trump focus on HRC laser-like. Ignore almost everything else that happens or that people say. Focus on Hillary and her horrid record throughout her life beginning with her dismissal from the Watergate Committee for ethical lapses, her time in Arkansas as a bribe taker, her time as a corrupt and power-mad FLOTUS, as a useless and corrupt senator, and as a destructive and corrupt SecState. Focus!!!

      Delete
    3. Whether Ryan, et al did the right thing by criticizing Trump, what depresses me most is that not one principled Democrat will step up and rip the mask off of Hellery. Not one! Didn't we used to have such Democrats?
      Good job of research on this post!

      Delete
    4. "DiploMadJune 8, 2016 at 9:43 PM"

      Agreed WLA! Focus like a laser on the High Value Target/s! As you may've heard by now, DJT has plans to do just that, beginning with a series of salvos aimed directly at the Hildabeast's long-playing record of Snafus!
      "Let's Roll"

      Delete
    5. "You sissies aren't standing up for your values!!!" signed... uhh.. anonymous... (golly... I hope nobody tracks this statement back to me...)

      - reader #1482 (still mainly anonymous too!)

      Delete
  8. I kind of suspect Mr. Trump didn't completely think through his comments about the judge before he made them, but still...

    If the judge rules against him in the case, he'll be able to say, "See, the judge had it in for me," thereby energizing his supporters and, perhaps some other voters.

    And if Trump wins the case, well, so much the better for him. He's a textbook (or at least autobiographical) winner all the way.

    The sad thing is, no one really cares about this case except Trump. Even if he lost it, the loss would be weak ammunition for "Crooked Hillary" to throw against him. So why did he even bother talking about it when he'd get more mileage from lobbing a fresh new daily broadside against such a juicy target as Clinton?

    If Trump is, as he claims, his own best advisor, he should fire himself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The best argument that Trump, unlike Hillary, does not lie is with examples like this one. He says what is in his mind and sometimes it comes out a bit odd. But it is the real thought, not some planned lie.

      Delete
    2. I really don't think so... the media can't talk about 'Trump University' without saying the word 'Trump' at least three or four times per sentence. I don't see why anybody seeking the presidency would want otherwise...
      trial in the case isn't until after Nov... which will make it interesting if he wins, but less stupid than if hillary wins and puts an end to the emailgate scandal.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  9. Excellent journalism, Mr. Diplomad! Thank you! I had not seen this detail about the La Raza lawyers anywhere else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Concur on Dip's journalistic skills.
      Btw, HotGas.Net has been reporting the LaRaza connection for the last several days, including a terrific 3 part analysis of the Trump U. situ!
      On Watch~~~

      Delete
  10. Judges and prosecutors should not be allowed to belong to organizations that advocate for specific races/ethnicities. The people who hold these positions should be held to a standard of impartial justice, regardless of the race or ethnicity of the parties involved. Membership in these kinds of organizations give at least the appearance of bias, if not the real thing.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh this is so infuriating. This is the one time I wish Trump would be specific instead of inflamatory.

    Those white separatists group who don't wish to a part of the US, they are whack jobs yes, but in the tradition of the Founding Founders who understood when the Leviathan ran roughshod over you, revolution is a solution.

    That's different from La Raza that promotes treason, because they believe that CA and AZ are/should be part of Mexico and they owe alliegence and loyalty to the Mexican government but not the US government.


    I know the leftys can't hear that just we conservatives overlook the Trump less than stellar aspects, but still, TREASON. How can anyone, D or R, condone that?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Backfiring already. He's got free rent in their empty skulls FOREVER. AND it will make them lose their minds. Frankly, I hoping for actual suicides from these prog scum

    ReplyDelete
  13. HAHA
    The Obama Admin Blocked An Iranian-American Judge From Hearing Iranian Immigration Cases

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/10/the-obama-admin-blocked-an-iranian-american-judge-from-hearing-iranian-immigration-cases/

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete