Category Archives: Justice

Question The Judiciary Only When Establishment Says So

Donald Trump, Federalism, Justice, Law, The Courts

Didn’t liberals, GOPers included, caution just the other day that our federal system (the holy trinity of colluding branches) rests on the little people not questioning the judiciary out loud, or was that a Trump-specific injunction? A. J. Delgado wants to know:

UPDATED: Judge Alberto Gonzales For Trump Vs. Judge Gonzalo Curiel For La Raza

Criminal Injustice, Donald Trump, Justice, Law

Judge Gonzalo Curiel is a picture of judicial impropriety, claims Alberto R. Gonzales, “White House counsel and U.S. attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, dean and Doyle Rogers Distinguished Professor of law at Belmont University College of Law in Nashville, Tenn.”

Yet not one anti-Trump, indignant journo—from Megyn Kelly (Fox News) to Chris Matthews to Katy Tur to Joe Scarborough to Chris Hayes (MSNBC) to Don Lemon to Erin Burnett (CNN) to Trump’s proliferating, less-than-competent female surrogates, to the domesticated Republicanscondemning the candidate—has mentioned Gonzales’ name or the incriminating facts he divulged about Justice Curiel’s unfitness to sit in judgment of Donald Trump.

Gonzales wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post titled “Trump has a right to ask if Judge Gonzalo Curiel is fair”:

“… An independent judiciary is extremely important. But that value is not the only one in play here. Equally important, if not more important from my perspective as a former judge and U.S. attorney general, is a litigant’s right to a fair trial. The protection of that right is a primary reason why our Constitution provides for an independent judiciary. If judges and the trials over which they preside are not perceived as being impartial, the public will quickly lose confidence in the rule of law upon which our nation is based. For this reason, ethics codes for judges — including the federal code of conduct governing Curiel — require not only that judges actually be impartial, but that they avoid even the “appearance of impropriety.” That appearance typically is measured from the standpoint of a reasonable litigant. …”

“… Certainly, Curiel’s Mexican heritage alone would not be enough to raise a question of bias (for all we know, the judge supports Trump’s pledge to better secure our borders and enforce the rule of law). As someone whose own ancestors came to the United States from Mexico, I know ethnicity alone cannot pose a conflict of interest.”

“But there may be other factors to consider in determining whether Trump’s concerns about getting an impartial trial are reasonable. Curiel is, reportedly, a member of a group called La Raza Lawyers of San Diego. Trump’s aides, meanwhile, have indicated that they believe Curiel is a member of the National Council of La Raza, a vocal advocacy organization that has vigorously condemned Trump and his views on immigration. The two groups are unaffiliated, and Curiel is not a member of NCLR. But Trump may be concerned that the lawyers’ association or its members represent or support the other advocacy organization. Coupled with that question is the fact that in 2014, when he certified the class-action lawsuit against Trump, Curiel appointed the Robbins Geller law firm to represent plaintiffs. Robbins Geller has paid $675,000 in speaking fees since 2009 to Trump’s likely opponent, Hillary Clinton, and to her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Curiel appointed the firm in the case before Trump entered the presidential race, but again, it might not be unreasonable for a defendant in Trump’s position to wonder who Curiel favors in the presidential election. These circumstances, while not necessarily conclusive, at least raise a legitimate question to be considered. Regardless of the way Trump has gone about raising his concerns over whether he’s getting a fair trial, none of us should dismiss those concerns out of hand without carefully examining how a defendant in his position might perceive them — and we certainly should not dismiss them for partisan political reasons. … .”

MORE: “Trump has a right to ask if Judge Gonzalo Curiel is fair.”

Donald Trump Explains What’s Behind That Atmospheric Violence

Donald Trump, Free Speech, Justice, Media

Via Meet The Press:
CHUCK TODD:

Mr. Trump, 17 days later, that actually happened. One of your supporters decided to sucker punch a protester. Do you accept any responsibility for creating this atmosphere?

DONALD TRUMP:

I don’t accept responsibility, I do not condone violence in any shape. And I will tell you from what I saw, the young man stuck his finger up in the air, and the other man sort of just had it. But I still, I don’t condone violence. As far as my previous statement, we had somebody that was punching and vicious and gone crazy, a disrupter, they’re not protesters. I’m telling you, they’re disrupters, they’re professionals.

And he went absolutely wild punching, and frankly, when they punch, it’s okay. When my people punch back because they have to out of self defense, everybody says, “Oh, isn’t that terrible?” The fact is, that we have very peaceful rallies. I’ve had many, many rallies. I have 25,000, 30,000 people coming to rallies.

And out of that, we have very, very little problem. We haven’t had a real injury or anything. And then Chicago I canceled, and I did a great thing by canceling it, because who needs the problems, who needs people getting hurt? I didn’t want that.

CHUCK TODD:

But when you say–

DONALD TRUMP:

So instead of getting–

CHUCK TODD:

But Mr. Trump, when you say, you know, “If you see somebody getting to ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them. Seriously, just knock the hell out of them. I promise you, I’ll pay for their legal fees.” How is that not condoning what this older gentleman did to this protester?

DONALD TRUMP:

Well, let me explain what happened. We were told just as I was going up on the stage, I was told by the secret service, “Sir, there’s a person or two people in the audience that have tomatoes. They are going to throw them at you, we think. If they do throw them, you have to be prepared.”

Now, if you get hit in the face with a tomato, let me tell you, with somebody with a strong arm, at least, let me tell you, it can be very damaging. Not good. So I was told people were in the audience, two people, with tomatoes, and they’re going to throw them at me. What I did is I said, “By the way, if you see anybody with tomatoes, right at the beginning, you’ve got to stop them. Do whatever you want to do.” I have no objection to what I said. I would say it again. People are there doing harm, you have to go and you have to use equal force.

CHUCK TODD:

Do you plan – I’m just curious–

DONALD TRUMP:

It’s not fair. It’s a one-way street.

CHUCK TODD:

I’m just curious, do you plan on paying for the legal fees of this older gentleman in North Carolina who sucker punched the protester?

DONALD TRUMP:

Well, I’m not aware. I will say this. I do want to see what that young man was doing. Because he was very taunting. He was very loud, very disruptive. And from what I understand, he was sticking a certain finger up in the air. And that is a terrible thing to do in front of somebody that frankly wants to see America made great again. And so we’ll see.

CHUCK TODD:

And that condones —

DONALD TRUMP:

I’m going to take a look at it. But I want to see what that man was doing.

CHUCK TODD:

And that condones a sucker punch though?

DONALD TRUMP:

No, as I told you before, nothing condones. But I want to see. The man got carried away, he was 78 years old, he obviously loves his country, and maybe he doesn’t like seeing what’s happening to the country. I want to see the full tape. But I don’t condone violence.

CHUCK TODD:

So you might pay for his legal fees?

DONALD TRUMP:

Well, I’m going to look at it. I’m going to see, you know, what was behind this because it was a strange event. But from what I heard, there was a lot of taunting and a certain finger was placed in the air. Not nice. Again, I don’t condone the violence. I don’t condone what he did. But you know what, not nice for the other side either.

CHUCK TODD:

It’s possible you could help him with legal fees, if this man needs it?

DONALD TRUMP:

I’ve actually instructed my people to look into it, yes.

Janice Rogers Brown: The Justice Obama (And Bush) Bypassed

Conservatism, Constitution, Justice, Law, The Courts

Leave a reply

Whoever interviewed the terribly nice Ben Carson the other day went blank (and quickly moved on) when Dr. Carson answered a question about his possible pick for the Supreme Court. (The ignorance jibes with Megyn Kelly, but I can’t be sure.) The good doctor’s pick was a good one: Janice Rogers Brown.

In 2009 (May 26), Judge Brown was “Barely A Blog’s Pick For The Supreme Court,” when we were faced with the choice of clodhopper Sonia Sotomayor (George Bush’s picks were as catastrophic. Remember the goofy Harriet Myers?). I wrote:

Who said the following: “Today’s senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much ‘free stuff’ as the political system will permit them to extract”?

Answer: Justice Janice Rogers Brown, the black, conservative judge George Bush had also passed-up on nominating for the SCOTUS. (Yes, the Republicans’ new-found fidelity for the Constitution should always be laughed out of court.)

This is just one of Brown’s many just utterances. At the time, President Bush’s lickspittles came close to conceding that he, too, considered Rogers Brown “outside the mainstream,” to use the Democrats’ line.

Janice Brown quotes Thucydides, F.A. Hayek, and Burke. That’s so white male, so yesterday; so wrong.