Tag Archives: Gonzalo Curiel

The Trump Critique of a Politicized Federal Judiciary | June 2016

Donald Trump Is Correct To Hit ‘La Raza Lawyers of California’ Federal Judge For Latino Identity Politics

– Breitbart

GettyImages-501657394-640x480

So why blast Trump for his Jeffersonian view of the judiciary?

“Trump’s suggestion that a Hispanic judge may treat him unfairly because of Trump’s border security proposals, such as the wall, challenges the claim that liberal judges engaged in identity politics are never biased against non-liberals. And while Democrats were enraged by Trump’s challenge, Trump struck fear into the hearts of establishment Republicans not accustomed to challenging the politically correct code to which they have previously surrendered.

Hillary Clinton immediately launched a political advertisement. The ad claimed that Trump’s questioning of Judge Curiel’s impartiality was “the definition of racism.” It also incorporated the growing list of Republicans condemning Trump’s Curiel criticism.

But what exactly had Trump done wrong? How was it unreasonable to suggest that a judge belonging to a group pledging to advance Latino interests might be biased against the man who wants to build the wall that hinders the interests of Latino politicians?

Had we not just witnessed Latinos in San Jose throw eggs and sucker punches at Trump supporters, and wave the Mexican flag? Had not McConnell himself, by hoping Trump would change his standard rhetoric, conceded that liberal Latinos – of which Curiel belongs – viewed Trump’s proposals with animus?

If one listened to Hillary and her cabal of Republicans, Trump is a modern day version of Orval Faubus – the Arkansas governor who resisted court ordered integration of schools. But that conclusion is based on left-wing fan fiction that holds any time a white male questions a protected minority the motivation must be rooted in discriminatory animus.

Judge Curiel’s integrity is not being questioned by Trump just because of his Hispanic heritage. Trump is merely asserting that a person’s heritage does not foreclose a proper inquiry into their political activism and potential biases; he is suggesting that Curiel – a man who supports awarding an illegal alien a scholarship – might not view favorably a man who wants to deport the said scholarship recipient.

Recusal is a common theme when pro-choice advocates run up against pro-life judges. Recently, some scholars wanted Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself from McCullen v. Coakley; a case concerning abortion clinic buffer zones. But such requests are rarely viewed in a negative light.

The fact is seeking recusal – even if just discussing it – is a great way to preserve the integrity of the bench. Federal judges are appointed for life, unelected, and reviewed by other unelected judges. It is why Thomas Jefferson warned the federal bench could easily become a “despotism of an oligarchy.”

So why blast Trump for his Jeffersonian view of the judiciary? Democrats know Hillary is in trouble. They know the economic outlook is bleak and for almost 8 years the party has had no answers. It is why Hillary is making much ado about nothing and, frankly, the voters don’t care about the judicial politics of one class action lawsuit.

But this debate is not just about Trump or Trump University; it is about a politically correct double standard that permits liberals to use the faith of pro-life judges to boot them from a case, but calls questioning the ethnicity based activism of a liberal judge racism. And this is a concept the voters understand.

Liberals made Trump’s comments about race because they know a reasonable personmight conclude Curiel’s activism creates the appearance of impropriety. The sad thing is Republicans, much like a battered spouse, are so accustomed to the politically correct abuse they accept it as the new normal.

By validating Hillary’s race card, Republican leaders have exhibited one of the worst examples of Stockholm syndrome. And when the dust settles, Newt will see that he and his fellow Republicans are the ones who made the “inexcusable” mistake.”

…Read more @ Breitbart

 

What Would Thomas Jefferson Say?

 

thos jefferson

Jefferson was plainly alarmed by the possibility of judicial tyranny. 

You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. — Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

Jefferson plainly had an answer against judicial tyranny. 

This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversions on its being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice … . But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but … . The ultimate arbiter is the people …. — Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 1823

He saw where judicial tyranny was leading. 

When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated …. —Letter to C. Hammond, July 1821

…Continue more @ the Tenth Amendment Center

 

 

Meet The Pro-Illegal Immigrant Groups The La Raza Lawyers Of San Diego Consider Part Of Their ‘Community’

– DailyCaller

“The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association (SDLRLA), the group which Trump University lawsuit Judge Gonzalo Curiel is a member of, considers various pro-illegal immigrant organizations as part of its “community.”

The SDLRLA’s website includes a side-panel on their site titled “Community” which includes links to a variety of groups, including the National Council of La Raza.

“Please note, the San Diego Lawyers Association is not affiliated with the National La Raza Council,” the president of the SDLRLA, Luis O. Osuna, told The Daily Caller in a statement. However, this link is not the only connection between the SDLRLA and the National Council of La Raza. The San Diego previously publicized a La Raza announcement in 2012 about gay marriage.

The SDLRLA is also an affiliate of the Hispanic National Bar Association. The former president of this group, Rafael Santiago, was on the board of the National Council of La Raza. ”

…Continue reading @ DailyCaller

 

Activist Trump University / La Raza Judge Now Attempts To Re-Seal Court Documents…

– theConservativeTreehouse

“Candidate Donald Trump previously accused Judge Gonzalo Curiel of having a bias, a specific political and agenda bias, to the benefit of the plaintiffs in the case; and it appears he is correct.

Yesterday it was discovered that Judge Curiel, an activist for illegal immigration, works on behalf of San Diego La Raza immigration activists to select illegal aliens for scholarships.

judge gonzalo curiel 2

Today his inherent rush to judgement surfaces once again, as Judge Curiel now tries to reverse course on a decision to unseal court records.

His original order unsealed court documents which were unredacted and exposed the personal information of people within the civil lawsuit.  Today, claiming it was a “mistake“, Judge Curiel tries to put the toothpaste back in the tube:

…More @ theConservativeTreehouse

– It should be noted the idea for Judge Curiel’s appointment to the Federal Court was Barbara Boxer’s idea./CJ