Actscelerate.com

Resident Skeptic

The Donald & The La Raza Judge (L)

Acts-dicted Posts: 8065 **6/12/16 1:28 pm**

The Donald & The La Raza Judge

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Before the lynching of The Donald proceeds, what exactly was it he said about that Hispanic judge?

Stated succinctly, Donald Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is presiding over a class-action suit against Trump University, is sticking it to him. And the judge’s bias is likely rooted in the fact that he is of Mexican descent.

Can there be any defense of a statement so horrific?

Just this. First, Trump has a perfect right to be angry about the judge’s rulings and to question his motives. Second, there are grounds for believing Trump is right.

On May 27, Curiel, at the request of The Washington Post, made public plaintiff accusations against Trump University — that the whole thing was a scam. The Post, which Bob Woodward tells us has 20 reporters digging for dirt in Trump’s past, had a field day.

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.

Does Newt think that when LBJ appointed Thurgood Marshall, ex-head of the NAACP, to the Supreme Court, he did not think Marshall would bring his unique experience as a black man and civil rights leader to the bench?

Surely, that was among the reasons Marshall was appointed.

When Obama named Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, a woman of Puerto Rican descent who went through college on affirmative action scholarships, did Obama think this would not influence her decision when it came to whether or not to abolish affirmative action?

“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,” Sotomayor said in a speech at Berkeley law school and in other forums.

Translation: Ethnicity matters, and my Latina background helps guide my decisions.

All of us are products of our family, faith, race and ethnic group. And the suggestion in these attacks on Trump that judges and justices always rise about such irrelevant considerations, and decide solely on the merits, is naive nonsense.

There are reasons why defense lawyers seek “changes of venue” and avoid the courtrooms of “hanging judges.”

When Obama reflexively called Sgt. Crowley “stupid” after Crowley’s 2009 encounter with that black professor at Harvard, and said of Trayvon Martin, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” was he not speaking as an African-American, as well as a president?

Pressed by John Dickerson on CBS, Trump said it’s “possible” a Muslim judge might be biased against him as well.

Another “inexcusable” outrage.

But does anyone think that if Obama appointed a Muslim to the Supreme Court, the LGBT community would not be demanding of all Democratic Senators that they receive assurances that the Muslim judge’s religious views on homosexuality would never affect his court decisions, before they voted to put him on the bench?

When Richard Nixon appointed Judge Clement Haynsworth to the Supreme Court, it was partly because he was a distinguished jurist of South Carolina ancestry. And the Democrats who tore Haynsworth to pieces did so because they feared he would not repudiate his Southern heritage and any and all ideas and beliefs associated with it.

To many liberals, all white Southern males are citizens under eternal suspicion of being racists. The most depressing thing about this episode is to see Republicans rushing to stomp on Trump, to show the left how well they have mastered their liberal catechism.

http://buchanan.org/blog/donald-la-raza-judge-125323
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI

bonnie knox

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **6/12/16 1:43 pm**

Is there any credible evidence that the judge's heritage is causing him to show partiality? No, there is not.

bonnie knox

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **6/12/16 1:52 pm**

Buchanan seems to be defended Trump's assault on the independence of the judiciary by saying, well, others did it too.
Here is a different viewpoint.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/donald-trump-2016-judge-gonzalo-curiel-attack-213946?o=1

Resident Skeptic

Re: (L)

Acts-dicted Posts: 8065 **6/12/16 2:27 pm**

Resident Skeptic

Re: (L)

Acts-dicted Posts: 8065 **6/12/16 2:28 pm**

bonnie knox

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **6/12/16 2:43 pm**

The only defect that Trump actually saw in the judge was that he hadn't ruled favorably to Trump. Trump is blaming that on the guy being of Mexican descent when there is no credible evidence that the judge's heritage is causing him to be partial.

Resident Skeptic

Acts-dicted Posts: 8065 **6/12/16 2:48 pm**

bonnie knox

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **6/12/16 5:47 pm**

Trump has complained about judges before, and the best I can tell is that he has something negative to say about EVERYONE who opposes him in any way. What in particular has this judge done that seems unfair with respect to Trump's case and why is it unfair? Trump is just whining as is very typical for him.

Resident Skeptic

Acts-dicted Posts: 8065 **6/12/16 6:21 pm**

bonnie knox

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **6/12/16 8:35 pm**

So far, you've not given any evidence that Judge Curiel is showing partiality in his rulings.
Why do you get personal? There is no reason to call me a hater. I dislike Trump, but I can give you reasons that I find him unlikeable; it is not a blind "hate." There is also no reason to say I'm unreasonable just because you don't agree with me.

Resident Skeptic

Acts-dicted Posts: 8065 **6/12/16 9:00 pm**

bonnie knox

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **6/12/16 9:25 pm**

UncleJD

Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere Posts: 3147 **6/13/16 8:47 am**

If it takes Pat Buchanan to defend your actions, you're not going to win an election.

Resident Skeptic

Acts-dicted Posts: 8065 **6/13/16 8:34 pm**

Cojak

01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011 Posts: 24285 **6/13/16 11:31 pm**

This should be an easy win for a solid Republican, even a 'company man'. I agree Trump is running an unorthodox campaign and is proud of it. BUT this thing with the judge should have been taken care of by his lawyers, not tried in the media. Most of us despise it when a case is tried in the Media.

The post is good, the wording is good, but unnecessary as relating to a presidential campaign. I get the idea Trump would use a 12 gauge shotgun for target practice from the 500 yard line, making a lot of good noise but will not reach the target.

I personally hope Trump wins or the Libertarian catches fire and shoots to the top (Unlikely), so I can feel comfortable he has the thrust to beat the Hillary one. I am a 'Never Hillary' guy at present (but getting ready to face the facts, she most likely will win). Sad

_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/

AussieRain

Friendly Face Posts: 198 **6/14/16 12:16 am**

Buchanan ran under the centrist/populist nomination of the Reform Party in 2000, incidentally the same year that "non-politician" Donald Trump ran for the same nomination until he realized he wouldn't/couldn't win. He and Trump have always been populists and not conservatives.

Buchanan/Trump combined elected offices held: 0. A proven record of winning.

Resident Skeptic

Acts-dicted Posts: 8065 **6/14/16 6:04 am**