Donald Trump's 2016 General Election Campaign

[Merneith]

@Starving_Artist

And will you now also concede that Trump’s concerns about this possible bias has a foundational basis and does not in fact constitute racism on Trump’s part?

I realize that this is not addressed to me - but I want to once again emphasize that no, Trump’s concerns about the Judge’s ancestry and the possibility that the Judge might be biased because, as Donald Trump insists, he’s building a wall - do not have a basis for a proper legal challenge against the judge.

Once again, I will quote from the Popehat blog, an actual lawyer citing an actual law:

@Ken White

So Trump’s argument that a “Mexican” can’t hear is case is bogus?

Beyond the shadow of a doubt based on a century of law. Many courts have considered and rejected the argument that a judge of a particular ethnicity, gender, or religion is inherently biased because of the nature of the case. In fact, the argument has been so repeatedly and thoroughly rejected that it’s sanctionable to make it.

Here is the full url that Ken included in that post:

138 F.3d 33

Here is a the header matter of that page, for future reference:

138 F.3d 33

MACDRAW, INC., Plaintiff, Klayman and Associates, P.C.,
Larry Klayman and Paul J. Orfanedes, Appellants,
v.
CIT GROUP EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC. and Richard Johnston,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 97-7193.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit

Argued May 15, 1997.
Decided Feb. 18, 1998.
It’s a short discussion of a case where one party objected to the judge for being a) a Bill Clinton appointee and b) Chinese. I will quote the conclusion:

**The fact that a political controversy may be perceived by some as involving racial or ethnic aspects is not grounds for questioning in an entirely separate matter the impartiality of a judge of that race or ethnicity toward attorneys who are also involved in the controversy. Courts have repeatedly held that matters such as race or ethnicity are improper bases for challenging a judge’s impartiality. **See United States v. El-Gabrowny, 844 F.Supp. 955, 961-62 (S.D.N.Y.1994) (refusing to answer questions posed regarding judge’s religious affiliation and connection, if any, to Israel); Blank v. Sullivan & Cromwell, 418 F.Supp. 1, 4 (S.D.N.Y.1975) (sex or race is improper basis for recusal); see also Pennsylvania v. Local Union 542, Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, 388 F.Supp. 155, 163 (E.D.Pa.1974). A suggestion that a judge cannot administer the law fairly because of the judge’s racial and ethnic heritage is extremely serious and should not be made without a factual foundation going well beyond the judge’s membership in a particular racial or ethnic group. Such an accusation is a charge that the judge is racially or ethnically biased and is violating the judge’s oath of office.
25

Nor should one charge that a judge is not impartial solely because an attorney is embroiled in a controversy with the administration that appointed the judge. Judges generally have political backgrounds to one degree or another but must be presumed, absent more, to be impartial. At least in the federal system, judges separate themselves from politics when going on the bench, and their life tenure reduces any felt reliance on political patrons. Indeed, a suggestion of partiality based on the appointing administration may often be a double-edged sword. If a Democratic appointee’s impartiality toward lawyers publicly identified as active Republicans may be questioned, a Republican appointee’s impartiality toward lawyers’ adversaries might similarly be questioned on the ground that a Republican judge might favor the Republican lawyers. Finally, appointment by a particular administration and membership in a particular racial or ethnic group are in combination not grounds for questioning a judge’s impartiality. Zero plus zero is zero.
26

**We do not hesitate to hold that the suggestions regarding Judge Chin’s impartiality violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. There is no factual basis for the suggestions made in the December 9 letter other than Judge Chin’s appointment by the Clinton Administration and his race and ethnicity. **Appellants, having suggested, but not having moved for, Judge Kram’s recusal because of her perceived (by appellants) “prejudgment,” found their desire for a new judge satisfied and proceeded to trial. Appellants correctly note that Judge Chin did express negative concerns about the merits of MacDraw’s case and the conduct of appellants in litigating it. However, such remarks are common and often important to a trial court’s administration of a case. Although they may occasionally wound counsel’s pride, they can be informative and helpful to counsel who are not hypersensitive. Although it is not necessary to our disposition of this appeal, we note that the panel hearing the previous appeal made analogous comments, describing one of MacDraw’s claims as “troubling” and Klayman’s brief as containing “inaccurate characterizations of the record and comments that we consider entirely inappropriate.” 73 F.3d at 1260, 1262.
27

Because the suggestions in the December 9 letter entailed claims of partisan and racial bias with no factual basis, such charges were “discourteous” and “degrading” to the court. Disciplinary Rule 7-106(C)(6). They were also “prejudicial to the administration of justice.” Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(5). The core constitutional obligation of a federal judge is to decide between adversary positions. A judge should be free to carry out that obligation without fear of insulting conduct or statements concerning his or her impartiality and integrity by the attorneys representing the losing party. Of course, professional advocates may lose perspective regarding the strengths or weaknesses of their case and find it difficult to conceal their feelings about an adverse decision immediately upon learning of it. Some tolerance must be shown by a court in such circumstances, as it was here, when Klayman exhibited pique in open court at the time of the adverse Rule 52(c) ruling. The December 9 letter came almost a month later, however. It was insulting and smacked of intimidation. Judge Chin was in no way required to tolerate it.

Emphasis mine.

There is no factual basis for Donald Trump’s assertion that Judge Curiel is biased against him. Merely braying, “I’m building a wall!” does not establish a factual proof of biased action on the part of Judge Curiel.

Trump has made no legal move in court, even asking for Curiel to recuse himself. All he’s done is spew bullshit on tv. To return to quoting Ken -

@Ken White

So Judge Curiel was right to refuse to recuse himself?

Judge Curiel hasn’t refused because Trump’s lawyers haven’t made a motion for recusal, because they know it’s without merit. Recusal motions are governed by Title 28, United States Code, section 144. If you make such a motion, the targeted judge looks at it to make sure it is timely and generally legally sufficient — that is, not facially ridiculous. If it clears that low hurdle, it goes to a different judge for determination, and the case is stayed in the meantime. Trump’s made no such motion.

Do you think his attorneys will make such a motion?

No.

So what’s Trump doing?

Posturing and playing to crowds who don’t like judges, or “Mexicans,” or especially “Mexican” judges. Puerile “Alpha” bullshit.

Ultimately, Donald’s mouth is writing checks that his legal team has no intention of trying to cash. There’s no rational reason for anyone else to accept Donald’s checks, either.

[Leaper]

Wait, didn’t Trump say earlier that Hispanics love him?

[elucidator]

Hispanics love him, but this guy is Mexican.

[BrainGlutton]

@Starving_Artist

Uh, no it doesn’t. Trump feels that inflammatory information contained in the lawsuit was wrongfully allowed to be made public by Judge Curiel, and so he feels the need to address it publicly in order to defend himself from the damaging impressions these public revelations create.

But in doing so, and in doing so in such a bigoted and inflammatory way, Trump now has drawn far more public attention to the whole thing than if he had withheld comment. This is not good judgment. This is not statesmanlike judgment.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Leaper

Wait, didn’t Trump say earlier that Hispanics love him?

The ones who clean the rooms and wash the dishes in his hotels say so whenever he asks them.

[coremelt]

@Starving_Artist

Uh, no it doesn’t. Trump feels that inflammatory information contained in the lawsuit was wrongfully allowed to be made public by Judge Curiel, and so he feels the need to address it publicly in order to defend himself from the damaging impressions these public revelations create.

Trump is saying Curiel is biased, but his legal team has made no motion to recuse. Trump should put up or shut up, make the motion to recuse or shut up and admit he’s wrong. If there’s been some legal error made by the judge there are multiple ways to appeal that, going to the media and bleating that the judge is biased as loudly as possible is not one of the usual avenues of appeal.

His direct attack on the impartially of the US judicial system has badly backfired on him, it’s caused more republicans to back away from him than anything else he’s done so far. So yeah actually I hope he keeps it up, it’s making things worse for him.

[Nametag]

@GIGObuster

I love science and work in technology, but my original training was in social studies and history.

So I do respect Ken Burns (of The Civil War, Baseball, Prohibition, The War (WWII) fame) a lot. And AFAICR he has come in favor of democrats before but has only criticized Republicans like McCain in mild terms. This year the gloves are off.

Ken Burns Offers Blistering Takedown Of Donald Trump In Stanford Commencement Speech | HuffPost College

Actually, my favorite bit came later, when he pleaded for the “Vichy Republicans” who had endorsed Trump to reconsider.

[Johnny_Ace]

Face it, SA. You’re fighting a losing battle. Even his own party says ‘Damn, that was racist!’

You can try to get legalistic all you want, you can spin it any way you want, nobody’s buying it. It was and is racist.

[Johnny_Ace]

Have fun with this one.

Woody Guthrie, ‘Old Man Trump’ and a real estate empire’s racist foundations

[Starving_Artist]

@Merneith

I realize that this is not addressed to me - but I want to once again emphasize that no, Trump’s concerns about the Judge’s ancestry and the possibility that the Judge might be biased because, as Donald Trump insists, he’s building a wall - do not have a basis for a proper legal challenge against the judge.

@coremelt

Trump is saying Curiel is biased, but his legal team has made no motion to recuse. Trump should put up or shut up, make the motion to recuse or shut up and admit he’s wrong.

What I think you two are failing to understand is that Trump has never had any real intention of challenging the judge or attempting to get him recused. I’ve said many times here on the board that Trump is rarely attempting to accomplish what he appears to be trying to do on the surface. IMO, what Trump is really doing is attempting to negate the damage that may have been caused by the release of some of the accusations in the lawsuit. He’s trying to make it appear to his base and to those who may be undecided that incriminating evidence against him has been released to the public by a biased judge who has it in for him, while at the same time exculpatory information has been repressed. This serves to negate as much as possible the damaging information about his university which the lawsuit alleges, while at the same time making him look like the victim once again of bias, bias that he also points out frequently when it comes from the news media. So basically he’s saying “Don’t believe all this stuff about my university because you’re getting slanted and incomplete information that is deliberately designed to make me look bad.”

I suspect a second but less important motive as well. I think that by putting a spotlight on how the judge handles the trial, Trump is seeking to make sure the judge crosses every “t” and dots every “i” and bends over backward to avoid the appearance of bias against Trump, all of which may serve to benefit Trump when the trial rolls around. His accusations may also serve to lay the groundwork for appeals should the verdict go against him.

Trump is tricky as hell and he’s a major-league hardball player. On the surface it appears that he’s being very foolish to take on and antagonize a well-respected federal judge, but to Trump he’s just a pawn in a much bigger game.

[iiandyiiii]

@octopus

Should Shared Ancestry Force A Judge's Recusal? : NPR

A judge forced to recuse due to ethnicity by the Obama administration? That textbook racist!

About That "Wise Latina" Statement - The Atlantic

You were saying?

Sotomayor has since rejected that sentiment. Trump has not.

[iiandyiiii]

@Starving_Artist

What I think you two are failing to understand is that Trump has never had any real intention of challenging the judge or attempting to get him recused. I’ve said many times here on the board that Trump is rarely attempting to accomplish what he appears to be trying to do on the surface. IMO, what Trump is really doing is attempting to negate the damage that may have been caused by the release of some of the accusations in the lawsuit. He’s trying to make it appear to his base and to those who may be undecided that incriminating evidence against him has been released to the public by a biased judge who has it in for him, while at the same time exculpatory information has been repressed. This serves to negate as much as possible the damaging information about his university which the lawsuit alleges, while at the same time making him look like the victim once again of bias, bias that he also points out frequently when it comes from the news media. So basically he’s saying “Don’t believe all this stuff about my university because you’re getting slanted and incomplete information that is deliberately designed to make me look bad.”

I suspect a second but less important motive as well. I think that by putting a spotlight on how the judge handles the trial, Trump is seeking to make sure the judge crosses every “t” and dots every “i” and bends over backward to avoid the appearance of bias against Trump, all of which may serve to benefit Trump when the trial rolls around. His accusations may also serve to lay the groundwork for appeals should the verdict go against him.

Trump is tricky as hell and he’s a major-league hardball player. On the surface it appears that he’s being very foolish to take on and antagonize a well-respected federal judge, but to Trump he’s just a pawn in a much bigger game.

This does not justify saying something racist, and saying a judge’s ethnic heritage means he is less capable of being unbiased, for this case or any case, it’s both unreasonable and racist.

Again, why, in this case or any other, would Mexican heritage make a judge less likely to avoid bias than white European heritage?

[JohnT]

@Starving_Artist

You say avoided, I say ignored. A halfway concession that doesn’t address the main point isn’t worth the bother.

[elucidator]

It not that Trump is unfit to lead, its that he is unfit to be followed.

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@Starving_Artist

What I think you two are failing to understand is that Trump has never had any real intention of challenging the judge or attempting to get him recused. I’ve said many times here on the board that Trump is rarely attempting to accomplish what he appears to be trying to do on the surface. IMO, what Trump is really doing is attempting to negate the damage that may have been caused by the release of some of the accusations in the lawsuit. He’s trying to make it appear to his base and to those who may be undecided that incriminating evidence against him has been released to the public by a biased judge who has it in for him, while at the same time exculpatory information has been repressed. This serves to negate as much as possible the damaging information about his university which the lawsuit alleges, while at the same time making him look like the victim once again of bias, bias that he also points out frequently when it comes from the news media. So basically he’s saying “Don’t believe all this stuff about my university because you’re getting slanted and incomplete information that is deliberately designed to make me look bad.”

I suspect a second but less important motive as well. I think that by putting a spotlight on how the judge handles the trial, Trump is seeking to make sure the judge crosses every “t” and dots every “i” and bends over backward to avoid the appearance of bias against Trump, all of which may serve to benefit Trump when the trial rolls around. His accusations may also serve to lay the groundwork for appeals should the verdict go against him.

Trump is tricky as hell and he’s a major-league hardball player. On the surface it appears that he’s being very foolish to take on and antagonize a well-respected federal judge, but to Trump he’s just a pawn in a much bigger game.

This does not make him look any more presidential. It doesn’t excuse what he has done. It makes him look like he’s out only for himself. Why the everloving fuck would anyone want this selfish prick to lead our melting pot nation? So he can enrich himself?

[JohnT]

n/m

[octopus]

@iiandyiiii

Sotomayor has since rejected that sentiment. Trump has not.

What about the first cite about the Judge of Iranian descent forced to recuse herself? If all the braying about racist Trump is correct wouldn’t the Justice Department which is part of the Obama administration be racist as well?

Should Shared Ancestry Force A Judge's Recusal?

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@GIGObuster

I love science and work in technology, but my original training was in social studies and history.

So I do respect Ken Burns (of The Civil War, Baseball, Prohibition, The War (WWII) fame) a lot. And AFAICR he has come in favor of democrats before but has only criticized Republicans like McCain in mild terms. This year the gloves are off.

Ken Burns Offers Blistering Takedown Of Donald Trump In Stanford Commencement Speech | HuffPost College

Good for him! A smart guy with some important things to say about The Donald.

[CarnalK]

@octopus

What about the first cite about the Judge of Iranian descent forced to recuse herself? If all the braying about racist Trump is correct wouldn’t the Justice Department which is part of the Obama administration be racist as well?

Should Shared Ancestry Force A Judge's Recusal? : NPR

FYI, they lifted the order to recuse herself

U.S. Government Settles Lawsuit Filed By Iranian-American Judge

[YamatoTwinkie]

@Starving_Artist

He’s saying that in this one particular case, the judge’s heritage appears to account for what Trump feels are biased rulings which unfairly put him at a disadvantage.

Even taking the alleged “bias” at face value, the judge has been on this particular case since before the “build a wall and have Mexico pay for it!” comment. If all it took to seek judge recusal due to bias was to make some racist comments about the judge’s ethnicity after the case isn’t going in your favor, it would be the definition of judge-shopping, which is not permitted.