The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
The Donald & the la Raza Judge
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

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?

ORDER IT NOW

“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.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

Copyright 2016 Creators.com.

 
Hide 79 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I think judges should be replaced by computers. I’m not kidding. We now have computers that defeat Grandmaster chess players. Computers now win against the Chinese game of Go players. If you want true impartial justice the have a machine deliver it. I could imagine you could program all the relevant law into a computer and presto a perfect verdict!!

  2. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    Never gonna happen. Judges are just legislators in robes, for the most part. What’s more, much of what their job is even when they’re not legislating involves evaluating people for truthfulness and weighing facts and arguments in ways that are completely black box in nature.

    In other words, there is no way any politician will give up the power of having a political ally on the court.

    • Replies: @woodNfish
    , @Corvinus
  3. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It’s not “inexcusable” to bring up the racial or ethnic background of a jury, though. That’s practically de rigeur these days. In fact, the ethnic or racial composition of jury members can serve as “grounds” for an appeal.

    The most perceptive comment that we have seen so far on this particular chess move by God-Emperor Trump is at

    https://www.heartiste.wordpress.com

    under “Comment of the Week: Forcing The Contradictions”.

    • Replies: @KenH
  4. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    I agree and I think it could be done. Problem is the computer would require human input and oversight. Just like the human handlers (computer scientists and grandmasters) who were on had to “correct” any bad move Deep Thought made in its 1989 match against Kasparov.

    I would much rather have a computer judge if I was innocent, and a human judge and jury if I were guilty.

  5. To how many fly-by-night for-profit “colleges” does Uncle Sam hand out tremendous amounts of cash subsidies and funnel millions of dollars of student loans?

    Why are our taxpayer dollars subsidizing the foreign Moslem Gulen schools?

    Why are taxpayer dollars still flowing to Harvard after Harvard’s recent anti-freedom of association rule barring student members of various voluntary associations from leadership positions in academics, student activities, and from fellowships?

    The blatant, brazen hypocrisy of our Open Borders Invade The World / Import The World Dear Rulers, GATT-Globalist Sellouts, academy (what’s left of it, that’s not yet become a greed cartel-complex), and Enemedia-Pravda snob-enforcer elites is simply gobsmacking.

  6. bondo says:

    [Comments lacking grammar or punctuation are likely to be trashed.]

  7. Rurik says:

    how dare anyone suggest that this judge has racial sympathies!

    suggesting that a man like this might have racial sympathies and be impartial, is like suggesting that Robert Mugabe is racially impartial.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    , @Eonic
  8. @Anonymous

    but then they can be hacked and manipulated. If we can solve this problem, I wouldn’t mind AI controlling our entire govt.

  9. Rurik says:

    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.

    House Speaker Paul Ryan on Tuesday called Donald Trump’s criticism of a Hispanic judge ‘indefensible’ and ‘the textbook definition of racist comments.’

    and the judge belonging to La Raza is not racist?!

    why is that, because it’s spelled with a Z ?

    these sacks of shit like Ryan need to be Eric Cantored but pronto!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  10. The guy is a first generation American of Mexican ancestry who is a member of a La Raza affiliated legal organization. .

    Imagine if the presiding Judge in a matter involving extradition of someone involved in funding the IRA was named McCarthy whose parents emigrated from Ireland and were members of Sinn Fein?

    Now, it might be inaccurate to assume a bias by the Judge, but would it be a Hate Crime to notice a potential conflict?

    • Replies: @Richard S
    , @Hibernian
  11. Richard S says:
    @Patrick in SC

    I, personally, would be quite satisfied with that particular arrangement ;)

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  12. Marcus says:

    The comparative lack of media coverage of the Clinton’s Laureate Education racket tells us all we need to know.

  13. Hibernian says:
    @Anonymous

    Require binding arbitration of all civil cases.

  14. Hibernian says:
    @Patrick in SC

    “Imagine if the presiding Judge in a matter involving extradition of someone involved in funding the IRA was named McCarthy whose parents emigrated from Ireland and were members of Sinn Fein?”

    I’m too lazy to do the research, but the likelihood that something like this has already happened in real life in Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, or Chicago, is, at the very least, nonzero. Let’s try looking at Judge Mc Carthy’s record so far in his life, emphasizing, but not limiting ourselves to, his time on the bench. I have to admit, if I was the prosecutor, I’d rather have a judge whose Sinn Fein supporting immigrant forebears were the GRANDPARENTS, preferably only on one side of the family.

  15. Hibernian says:
    @Richard S

    Is S for Sullivan?

    • Replies: @Richard S
  16. tbraton says:

    There is still the unresolved question of whether the parents of Judge Curiel, who was born in 1954 (11 years before the Immigration Act of 1965, which liberalized immigration from Mexico), were U.S. citizens when Judge Curiel was born in Indiana. If they weren’t, he was, in effect an “anchor baby,” and Trump spoke out against them last summer, taking a page out of Anne Coulter’s book. Today’s NY Times appears to have confirmed that fact: “Mr. Trump spoke in an interview with “Fox and Friends,” a day after Mr. Gingrich, the former House speaker, and Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, denounced the presumptive presidential nominee for calling Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel a “Mexican.” The judge was born in Indiana to Mexican parents.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/us/newt-gingrich-donald-trump-judge.html If Judge Curiel’s parents were indeed “Mexican” when he was born, that makes him an “anchor baby” with no legal claim to U.S. citizenship, if Trump and Coulter are right about the 14th Amendment.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  17. J1234 says:

    And let’s not forget (since it’s been a couple of weeks, and that’s an awfully long time) that the Supreme Court recently ruled that a black convicted murderer didn’t receive justice because he was judged by an all white jury.

    And just a week ago, the Washington Post had a lengthy article about how all white juries can’t possibly deliver justice to black defendants.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/30/how-big-a-difference-does-an-all-white-jury-make-a-leading-expert-explains/

    But Trump isn’t even remotely suggesting anything as broad based as this damning conclusion. He’s saying , when a judge makes an egregious error, start looking into the possible explanations for that error. Even the possibility of a conflict of interest. If that judge is Hispanic AND belongs to an organization that has the Spanish-ism “LaRaza” in the title, and the person he’s judging has said, “build a wall between the US and Mexico,” how can there NOT be a conflict of interest?? The white juries in question had far less activist political affiliations than this judge…yet they are being deemed “incompetent.”

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  18. tbraton says:
    @tbraton

    I didn’t realize that a minor child obtains U.S. citizenship if one of his parents is naturalized as a U.S. citizen while the child is still a minor:

    “For instance, you may be a U.S. citizen if you have direct ancestors who were U.S. citizens, even if you were born elsewhere, or if your parents became U.S. citizens when you were a minor.

    U.S. citizenship can be obtained in one of four ways:
    •birth in the United States or one of its territories [Note: this is "birthright citizenship, which is disputed by Anne Coulter and Donald Trump, among others.]
    •birth to U.S. citizen parents (called “acquisition” of citizenship)
    •naturalization (obtaining citizenship after an application and exam), or
    •naturalization of one’s parents (called “derivation” of citizenship) . . .

    Children of naturalized U.S. citizens. When parents become naturalized U.S. citizens, their minor children with green cards gain U.S. citizenship automatically. (Children under the age of 18 cannot normally apply to become naturalized U.S. citizens.)” http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/us-citizenship-birth-parents-29750.html

    Thus, Judge Coriel may have acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of his father getting naturalized, if the naturalization happened before Coriel turned 18 (1972) and he had a green card at the time.

    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
    , @europeasant
  19. Wally says: • Website

    Anne Coulter gets real on the racist hispanic judge Curiel:

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/08/stunning-new-development-media-calls-trump-racist/

    excerpts:

    [MORE]

    Curiel has distributed scholarships to illegal aliens. He belongs to an organization that sends lawyers to the border to ensure that no illegal aliens’ “human rights” are violated. The name of the organization? The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association — “La Raza” meaning THE RACE.

    Let’s pause to imagine the nomination hearings for a white male who belonged to any organization for white people — much less one with the words “THE RACE” in its title.

    The New York Times alone has published hundreds of articles, editorials, op-eds, movie reviews, sports articles and crossword puzzles darkly invoking “white judges” and “all-white” juries, as if that is ipso facto proof of racist justice.

    Two weeks ago — that’s not an error; I didn’t mean to type “decades” and it came out “weeks” — the Times published an op-ed by a federal appeals judge stating: “All-white juries risk undermining the perception of justice in minority communities, even if a mixed-race jury would have reached the same verdict or imposed the same sentence.”

    In other words, even when provably not unfair, white jurors create the “perception” of unfairness solely by virtue of the color of their skin.

    Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck’s entire career of springing criminals would be gone if it were generally accepted that we can’t question judges or juries based on race or ethnicity. Writing about the release of Glenn Ford, a black man convicted of robbing a jewelry store and murdering the owner, Scheck claimed that one of the most important factors in Ford’s death sentence was the “all-white jury.”

    Ann Coulter
    Stunning New Development!!! Media Calls Trump Racist
    Photo of Ann Coulter
    Ann Coulter
    Political Commentator
    4:01 PM 06/08/2016

    2

    Pinterest
    Reddit
    LinkedIn

    2
    Share

    Annoyed at federal judge Gonzalo P. Curiel’s persistent rulings against him in the Trump University case (brought by a law firm that has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches by Bill and Hillary), Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said that maybe it’s because the judge is a second-generation Mexican immigrant.

    The entire media — and most of the GOP — have spent 10 months telling us that Mexicans in the United States are going to HATE Trump for saying he’ll build a wall. Now they’re outraged that Trump thinks one Mexican hates him for saying he’ll build a wall.

    Curiel has distributed scholarships to illegal aliens. He belongs to an organization that sends lawyers to the border to ensure that no illegal aliens’ “human rights” are violated. The name of the organization? The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association — “La Raza” meaning THE RACE.

    Let’s pause to imagine the nomination hearings for a white male who belonged to any organization for white people — much less one with the words “THE RACE” in its title.

    The media were going to call Trump a racist whatever he did, and his attack on a Hispanic judge is way better than when they said it was racist for Republicans to talk about Obama’s golfing.

    Has anyone ever complained about the ethnicity of white judges or white juries? I’ve done some research and it turns out … THAT’S ALL WE’VE HEARD FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS.

    The New York Times alone has published hundreds of articles, editorials, op-eds, movie reviews, sports articles and crossword puzzles darkly invoking “white judges” and “all-white” juries, as if that is ipso facto proof of racist justice.

    Two weeks ago — that’s not an error; I didn’t mean to type “decades” and it came out “weeks” — the Times published an op-ed by a federal appeals judge stating: “All-white juries risk undermining the perception of justice in minority communities, even if a mixed-race jury would have reached the same verdict or imposed the same sentence.”

    In other words, even when provably not unfair, white jurors create the “perception” of unfairness solely by virtue of the color of their skin.

    Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck’s entire career of springing criminals would be gone if it were generally accepted that we can’t question judges or juries based on race or ethnicity. Writing about the release of Glenn Ford, a black man convicted of robbing a jewelry store and murdering the owner, Scheck claimed that one of the most important factors in Ford’s death sentence was the “all-white jury.”

    On the other hand, the evidence against Ford included: His two black friends telling police he’d shown them jewelry the day of the murder, another Ford acquaintance swearing he’d had a .38 in his waistband — the murder weapon was a .38 — and the gunshot residue on Ford’s hand. His conviction was overturned many years later, on the theory that his black friends had committed the murder, then framed him.

    So we know 1) the “real killers” were also black; and 2) any jury would have convicted Ford on that evidence.

    Here’s how the Times described Ford’s trial: “A black man convicted of murder by an all-white jury in Louisiana in 1984 and sentenced to die, tapped into an equally old and painful vein of race.”

    I have approximately 1 million more examples of the media going mental about a “white judge” or “all-white jury,” and guess what? In none of them were any of the white people involved members of organizations dedicated to promoting white people, called “THE RACE.”

    Say, does anyone remember if it ever came up that the Ferguson police force was all white? Someone check that.

    I don’t want to upset you New York Times editorial board, but perhaps we should revisit the results of the Nuremberg trials. Those were presided over by – TRIGGER WARNING! – “all white” juries. (How do we really know if Hermann Göring was guilty without hearing women’s and Latino voices?)

    The model of a fair jury was the O.J. trial. Nine blacks, one Hispanic and two whites, who had made up their minds before the lawyers’ opening statements. (For my younger readers: O.J. was guilty; the jury acquitted him after 20 seconds of deliberation.) At the end of the trial, one juror gave O.J. the black power salute. Nothing to see here. It was Mark Fuhrman’s fault!

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/08/stunning-new-development-media-calls-trump-racist/#ixzz4B1OWEWjY

  20. This was one of Pat’s best in contesting the frame television and the Democrats are using in this election. It makes for a short debate when all you have to say is “My opponent is a hateful racist.”

    I’ve spent some time at a site for those laid off from Intel. It’s very instructive. Many are angry about the H1B visas. This is called “hate” by those with H1B visas. Yet those same people gloat about the destruction of whites and say they deserve it because they are lazy and stupid. “Ha, ha. You’re losing your country,” the so-called guest workers say. Oddly, they do not see this as hateful or racist stereotyping as many POC don’t think racism can ever be attributed to them.

    I think this is all going to plan as far as the one world orders plans for a 1-world sweatshop, but if we are to have any debates in this election about what is best for our country, it needs to begin with the recognition that bigotry is an equal opportunity employer.

    • Replies: @Auntie Analogue
  21. @YT Wurlitzer

    My dear One of Pat’s best, won’t you, please, share with us the url of the sacked Intel workers’ website?

  22. I’d like someone to check Washington Post and the New York Times for racism.

    How many members of the Editorial Board are Mexican?

    How many of the reporters ad opinion writers are Mexicans.

    How many members of the Board of Directors are Mexican?

    Carlos Slim was not allowed to own the New York Times because he was Mexican. He’s the richest man in Mexico. Some reporter from another news organization ought to call them up and start asking questions.

    I think it would be funny if Trump turned the tables on the media and started demanding that they hire more Mexican reporters.

    Question more.

    • Replies: @dahoit
  23. Buchanan:

    “The judiciary is independent, but that does not mean that federal judges are exempt from the same robust criticism as presidents and members of Congress.”

    Damn straight.

    Federal shysters are no better than anyone else. They can be biased, they can be mean, they can be arrogant. They’ve got lifetime appointments. They’re unelected and unaccountable.

    Mr. Trump, slam that judge hard!

  24. You are right on all counts. Trump should not back down.

    I have extensive personal experience with judges and can say that they are arguably worse than elected politicians. They are even more arrogant because they don’t face even a slight chance of being removed from office, which at least some of our elected politicians do.

    Judges typically do not even pretend to know and follow the constitution. They legislate without the honesty to acknowledge that’s what they’re doing, without the guts to run for office, and with supreme confidence that they are equipped to dictate how the rest of us inferior people should live. Dems and republican alike, judges strongly tend to side with expansion of state power and with government thugs, whether police or irs agents or dea agents.

    And I’ve seen judges be obnoxious, sarcastic, demeaning, insulting, and threatening to their staff and to attorneys many, many, many times in a number of States over the last quarter century or so. Both dems and republicans, but the worst offenders were democrats.

    We need term limits for federal judges, an end to guaranteed full-salary pension, and a mandate that congress publish and publicly consider comments by the public, litigants, attorneys, and court staff about how the various judges treat people.

    Our judicial system is a disgrace and a comfortable home for america’s enemies.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  25. @tbraton

    All correct except that only one parent has to be a U.S. citizen for any of those methods to work. There has never been a law in the U.S. that requires anyone to have both parents as citizens to acquire citizenship.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  26. In some Commonwealth countries, criticism of the judiciary, as well as criticism of judgments can be prosecuted under the concept of “scandalization of the judiciary.” i.e. creating an air of scandal around a judge or the courts.

    It appears that the same impulses drive those who would tell Trump to shut up and not criticize a sitting Federal judge for possibly being biased as a result of his ethnicity. This is not a good trend in a free society.

  27. Wally says: • Website

    Ann Coulter nails this racist judge and media hypocrisy here:

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/06/08/ann-coulter-stunning-new-development-media-calls-trump-racist/

    excerpt:

    … no one denounced now-sitting Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor for her “wise Latina” speech, in which she said “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

    But Trump is a “racist” for saying the same thing.

    Six months ago, a Times editorial demanded that the Republican Senate confirm Obama judicial nominee Luis Felipe Restrepo, on the grounds that “[a]s a Hispanic,” Restrepo would bring “ethnic … diversity to the court.”

    You see how confusing this is. On one hand, it’s vital that we have more women and Latinos on the courts because white men can’t be trusted to be fair. But to suggest that women and Latinos could ever be unfair in the way that white men can, well, that’s “racist.”

    The effrontery of this double standard is so blinding, that the only way liberals can bluff their way through it is with indignation. DO I HEAR YOU RIGHT? ARE YOU SAYING A JUDGE’S ETHNICITY COULD INFLUENCE HIS DECISIONS? (Please, please, please don’t bring up everything we’ve said about white judges and juries for the past four decades.)

    They’re betting they can intimidate Republicans — and boy, are they right!

    Why are so many Supreme Court judges Jews?

    • Replies: @tbraton
    , @bondo
  28. tbraton says:
    @PiltdownMan

    That was my understanding as well. We know from the NY Times that first the father and then the mother became U.S. citizens. The only unknown is when the father became naturalized. As I said, if that happened before Judge Curiel became 18 (1972), then there is no problem, although I’m not sure about that “green card” stuff.

  29. Wanderer says:

    Surely, the real issue is what appears to be a clear conflict of interest:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/la-raza-judge-curiels-bar-association-calls-boycott-trump-properties-golf-courses/

    Unfortunately, it seems that vibrants don’t want to understand such niceties.

  30. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Rurik

    and the judge belonging to La Raza is not racist?!

    Given that Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race, shouldn’t it be La Etnia (or La Origen Etnico – online translators give both), i.e. The Ethnicity.

  31. KenH says:
    @Anonymous

    It’s not “inexcusable” to bring up the racial or ethnic background of a jury, though. That’s practically de rigeur these days.

    Only if the judge is white and/or the jury is all white. Only the motives of white people can be questioned in merica. Everyone else is off limits. Just imagine the furor if a white, male and Southern judge ruled against a famous black person.

  32. @Anonymous

    Hispanic” is a misnomer applied by the US Census Bureau. It is a ridiculously broad thing that only leads to confusion.

    The majority of Latin American people, including most of those invading the United States, are heavily Native American, which is a race.

    Conquistadores like Judge Curiel and other political leaders of the invasion are primarily European, Spanish. Their people have subjugated and exploited the Native American race as a lower class in Latin America since arriving there five centuries ago.

    They are perfectly happy to see the United States become part of their two-class, Latin world and serve as a relief valve for Latin America’s economic and social problems.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  33. tbraton says:
    @Wally

    “Why are so many Supreme Court judges Jews?”

    That should be “why are so many Supreme Court justices Jews?” The proper term for a Supreme Court judge is “Justice” even though the U.S. Constitution uses the term “judge”: “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” (Art. III, Sec. 1.)

    Correction to my earlier post on Judge Curiel. According to Wikipedia, he was born in 1953, not 1954, as I stated earlier. Thus, the important date for his father’s naturalization is when Judge Curiel turned 18 in 1971, not 1972.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @tbraton
  34. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    The judge’s ancestor’s are actually from Portugal, then Jamaica, then onto Mexico. The Mexican slant is a ruse to get Mex-Americans PO at Trump and vote for the war-monger, bail out the Big Banks, spy on you 24/7, professional liar Hillary.

  35. mtn cur says:

    A lot of white people are lazy and stupid now days. Why import millions more ignoramuses when we already have too many? Sure, I criticize Trump for blaming Mexico and China for the mess that lazy and stupid white people made by defaulting on their citizenship because becoming obese on credit card consumerism was more fun. Two faced only begins to describe the critics of Trump university when they were willing accomplices to changing American education institutions into fraudulent shills for the investment firms while educating lazy and stupid young white people on how to be lazy and stupid adults in return for a jillion dollar debt. Trump is an ignorant and arrogant opportunist but he says what he thinks and so does Sanders; meanwhile, I would not trust their opponents to feed my dog over the weekend.

    • Replies: @karmakelli
    , @dahoit
  36. Charges of racism against Trump are not deserving of rational response. A million times every day and a million times every night Trump is accused of racism. Another two million times in the same day and night he is accused of misogyny. The entire anti Trump hysteria is one gigantic ad-hominem attack. It is said that he cannot be president because of the kind of person he is. Modern presidents Clinton, Dubya and Obama are murderers and traitors. Trump should be more like them? Trump is “vulgar” compared to murderers and traitors?

    • Agree: Rurik
  37. bondo says:
    @Wally

    “Why are so many Supreme Court judges Jews?

    the appointer and the approvers are bought and paid for.

    service is to jewry

    the buyer.

  38. The term “La Raza” began in an era when people of mixed heritage (usually indigenous native American i.e. Aztec, Maya, Tarahumara, etc and Spanish, generically speaking) were looked down upon as ‘less than’ so they took the term la raza and redefined it as a positive when compared to the Spanish concept of pureza de raza, usually meaning no jewish or quasi Islam background) often viewed as negative. A lie, this pureza de sangre (pure ‘blood’) when many of these people had jewish ancestry and were actually conversos trying to escape the tyranny of their Spanish/Portuguese brethren. The High Priest of the Inquisition, Torquemada was at the top of the food chain, having to be more Catholic than the Pope. imagine that.

    Not unlike the N word (at best, the tonal quality of the descriptive) when compared to the Southern pronunciation and its past context of US apartheid at its best.
    La Raza, meaning US , nosotros, la gente (we the people) and positive acceptance of mixed ethnicity. Nothing more or less is meant with the use of the term La Raza. In context, it is Mexican so La Raza Lawyers Organization is just a lawyers group of Mexican American formed when they were not welcomed in the white lawyers organizations! Just as one of the first Mexican Americans to die in a world war conflict, that veteran was denied status in an allegedly white cemetery (even in death the racist ideas predominate) and lawyers were they so secure equity before the law! God Bless “Murica”!

    • Replies: @Pandos
    , @dahoit
  39. woodNfish says:
    @whorefinder

    much of what their job … involves evaluating people for truthfulness and weighing facts

    You have either drunk the koolaid or are not very familiar with our corrupt legal system. Truth and facts have little part in it.

  40. @Anonymous

    You are right in this characterisation, since hispanics from Argentina or Brazil have a different racial make-up, as do hispanics hailing from central America or different parts of Mexico. It is more of a cultural category. What brings in race at all in this instance is the name of the organization the judge and his crony, the suing attorney belong to, “la Raza” which can be literally translated as “the Race”.

    Trump should not have used the adjective “Mexican” in his critique of this situation, which appears to be a more usual case of lawyers being too close to the judges they are using to prosecute their civil case. The fact that both the judge and the suing attorney have a long record of association in this organization and that both have called for boycotts of Trump’s businesses because of their dislike of statements he has made (statements I also dislike but which I am willing to overlook to some degree because the other presumed major candidate is a fraudster and a war criminal) creates an inference of corruption against the entire lawsuit being prosecuted against Trump. For good or evil, he makes statements without the usual political correctness filters. Since his supporters are aware of this, and since the element of corruption in the association he is attacking is provable, I don’t see this as having much of a permanent effect on things.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @Reg Cæsar
  41. Biff says:

    Our crusty elites calling Trump racist, is pot calling kettle black.
    The war on terror has produced an apartheid legal system, that was already somewhat apartheid to begin with, and our elites are just fine with it.

    • Replies: @dahoit
  42. Pandos says:
    @jack shindo

    Nonsense comment. Who are we going to believe? You or our own eyes?

  43. Corvinus says:
    @whorefinder

    “Judges are just legislators in robes, for the most part.”

    No, they are not lawmakers. Conservative and liberal judges alike interpret the law using precedent and their own experiences. That’s how it always has been and will be.

    • Replies: @Stonehands
  44. Corvinus says:
    @RadicalCenter

    “I have extensive personal experience with judges and can say that they are arguably worse than elected politicians.”

    Which you are desperately trying to generalize based on anecdotal evidence.

    “They are even more arrogant because they don’t face even a slight chance of being removed from office, which at least some of our elected politicians do.”

    How do you perceive this arrogance? Exactly how do they display it?

    “Judges typically do not even pretend to know and follow the constitution.”

    Typically, huh. Are you able to provide a specific example?

    “Dems and republican alike, judges strongly tend to side with expansion of state power and with government thugs, whether police or irs agents or dea agents.”

    So, legal boy, what do you propose we should do about this situation?

    “And I’ve seen judges be obnoxious, sarcastic, demeaning, insulting, and threatening to their staff and to attorneys many, many, many times in a number of States over the last quarter century or so.”

    And I’ve seen lawyers act in a similar fashion. That does NOT mean ALL or MOST act in this manner. You are distinctly projecting your disdain for judges to EVERY circumstance, which is irrational.

    “Both dems and republicans, but the worst offenders were democrats.”

    Examples?

    We need term limits for federal judges, an end to guaranteed full-salary pension”

    Ok, I can get on board here.

    “and a mandate that congress publish and publicly consider comments by the public, litigants, attorneys, and court staff about how the various judges treat people.”

    As if Congress does not have enough to do? How do you propose carrying out this process? Who is charge? Does it not add to another layer of bureaucracy and partisan bickering?

    Just think for once before making grandiose solutions that have little chance of being put forth.

    “Our judicial system is a disgrace and a comfortable home for america’s enemies.”

    Who are these enemies? Why are they our enemies?

  45. @mtn cur

    Wow, every sentence contains an angry insult. Your frothing hostility toward … well, everything, is both impressive and frightening.

  46. Svigor says:

    Coulter said it best. Paraphrased, “the left just spent the last six months creaming at the top of their lungs that Mexicans are gonna hate Trump for saying we should build a wall, now they’re screaming at the top of their lungs that Trump is a racist because he suggested one Mexican might hate him because he said we should build a wall.”

    The left = psycho chick from Fatal Attraction.

    Buzz Mohawk says:
    June 9, 2016 at 1:23 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Careful. You mustn’t confuse the left with facts.

  47. gwynedd1 says:

    How about the curious case of :

    Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor

  48. Sue Donym says:

    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.

    Pat, can you, will you please substaniate this statement? Which organizations? How do they support them?

    Thank you.

  49. Hibernian says:
    @J1234

    Judges are not jurors; jurors are amateurs, judges are professionals. Lawyers have more latitude in questioning in a bench trial because there’s no worry about prejudicing a jury. Facing a judge of another ethnicity when you are somehow at odds with that ethnicity is not the same as facing a jury of 12 with no one of your own ethnicity.

    • Replies: @J1234
  50. Greg S. says:

    The attacks on Trump are all predicated on a “big lie.” A big lie is a lie that’s so big, and so obvious, yet so widely believed that nobody dares call it a lie. The classic “emperor with no clothes” case, if you will.

    The big lie in this case is the pervasive belief spread by the media and elites (on both sides of the political spectrum) that all people are exactly the same and exactly equal.

    So women are the same as men. Muslims are the same as Christians. Mexicans are the same as white people.

    None of those statements are even remotely true, yet to deny any of them means you get labelled a racist, misogynist, bigot.

    I applaud Trump for fighting against this. It takes more courage than you can imagine.

  51. @Corvinus

    “….That’s how it always has been and will be.

    I doubt it… But you’ll probably always be an arrogant prick.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  52. robt says:

    The WaPo has 20 reporters on the job for months and this is all they can come up with?

  53. Corvinus says:
    @Stonehands

    “I doubt it… But you’ll probably always be an arrogant prick.”

    For someone who claims to follow the word of God, you don’t practice what you preach.

  54. Wally says: • Website
    @tbraton

    “Why are so many Supreme Court judges Jews?”
    That should be “why are so many Supreme Court justices Jews?” The proper term for a Supreme Court judge is “Justice” even though the U.S. Constitution uses the term “judge”

    IOW, “judges” is the correct term.

    And you dodged my question:
    Why are so many Supreme Court judges Jews?

    • Replies: @tbraton
    , @Reg Cæsar
  55. expeedee says:

    I think that the reason the judiciary has so much power in this country is because the legislators are such cowards. Laws are often written in vague terms that shield legislators from taking strong emphatic stands especially on controversial issues (e.g. affirmative action) and invites litigation and thus judicial interpretation. Legislators (politicians) never want to be held responsible for anything in Washington and would rather blame judges for opinions.

  56. tbraton says:
    @Wally

    I was merely trying to be helpful by pointing out what is common practice, but I guess some people are beyond educating. According to Wikipedia, “The judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the judges of the supreme courts of several US states and other countries are called “justices”. Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices of other courts are addressed as “Justice (name).” The Chief Justice of the United States is formally addressed as “Mr. Chief Justice” but also may be identified and addressed as “Chief Justice Roberts”.”

    • Replies: @Wally
  57. @exiled off mainstreet

    since hispanics from Argentina or Brazil

    Brazil is at most 10% Hispanic, the vast majority of that blood coming directly to Brazil from Spain. When asked in 1998, only 4.4% of Brazilians reported their “origem” as Spanish.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Brazil#Statistics

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Brazil#Consequences

    Spaniards appear to be in the middle range of fecundity, compared to the Arabs, and to the Japanese, who are outbred a dozen times by those Arabs:

    Origin: Number of immigrants / Number of descendants / Descendants per immigrant
    Arab: 140,000 / 10,000,000 / 71.43
    German: 223,658 / 5,000,000 / 22.36
    Spanish: 716,478 / 15,000,000 / 20.94
    Italian: 1,623,931 / 25,000,000 / 15.39
    Japanese: 248,007 / 1,400,000 / 5.65

  58. @Wally

    Why are so many Supreme Court judges Jews?

    Well, duh… they’re appointed by Democrats, and they’re the only people on the left with any brains.

    The wise-ass Latina was just a token. Clarence Thomas, without the common sense.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  59. @exiled off mainstreet

    Incidentally, I’ve just been exiled onto Main Street. Literally.

  60. Eonic says:
    @Rurik

    Here is a working link. The one posted shows a capital “x” where there should be a lower-case “x”

  61. Wally says: • Website
    @tbraton

    No, what you’re trying to do now is spin your asinine self defeating post.

    What they are “addressed” as and what the US Constitution officially labels them as are two separate matters.

    I’ll go with the US Constitution anytime, and you? Well, obviously not.

    And of course you dodged my question again:
    Why are so many Supreme Court judges Jews?

    • Replies: @tbraton
    , @dahoit
  62. Eonic says:

    Sorry. Somehow the same error crept into my supposedly correct link. It seems impossible to post it accurately. So you can try this http://truthfeed.com/former-attorney-general-alberto-gonzalez-agrees-trump-has-right-to-question-la-raza-judge/5786/

  63. “For someone who claims to follow the word of God, you don’t practice what you preach.”

    “Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:Neither give place to the devil.”

  64. tbraton says:
    @Wally

    “What they are “addressed” as and what the US Constitution officially labels them as are two separate matters.
    I’ll go with the US Constitution anytime, and you? Well, obviously not.”

    Judging from your message #57, you were apparently ignorant about the wording in the Constitution until I pointed it out to you in my original response, message #35: “IOW, “judges” is the correct term.”

    So, it looks like you are a bloviating, ignorant a**hole who posts on unz.com just to sell things. I checked out your “Website,” which directed me to “American Renaissance.” When I clicked on “who we are,” I was directed to a webpage which appeared to be selling something because it said in bold print “save $400″ without telling you what it would cost you. Nice ploy: emphasize the savings, not the cost, just like my local supermarket, which tells me each time I check out that I supposedly “saved $4.42″ while spending over $100. I am sorry I responded to you, “Wally.” I certainly won’t be making that mistake again.

  65. tbraton says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    “Well, duh… they’re appointed by Democrats, and they’re the only people on the left with any brains.”

    Well, for supposedly very bright jurists, they certainly don’t believe in writing much and revealing their thinking. In the recent case involving gay marriage, not one of the three supposedly brilliant Jewish Justices wrote any opinion explaining why the Constitution authorized gay marriage. You would think such a ground-breaking decision would elicit at least one concurring opinion from the 3 Jewish Justices, but not a peep. I think having six Catholic Justices on the Court is likewise unwise because it is so disproportional and unrepresentative of the U.S. population, but at least we get written opinions from them explaining their thought process. Back in the early 70′s, we used to hear about the so-called “Minnesota Twins” on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Burger and Justice Blackmun, but today we never hear about the “Torah Trio,” who seem to vote the same way on every major case. Also interesting that we hear so much about the importance of “diversity” in American life, but such talk stops at the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court, where we have 6 Catholic and 3 Jewish Justices taking up all 9 seats. And no talk at all about Obama’s decision to diminish the 6 Catholic seats to 5 by nominating a fourth Jew to the Court. Now that’s diversity.

  66. tbraton says:
    @tbraton

    To supplement my earlier post re the use of the term “Justice” when speaking of the judges who serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, such use is mandated by statute passed by Congress. There is also one other reference in the U.S. Constitution to the Chief Justice, Art. I, Sec. 3, Clause 6: “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall provide.” So, it is not a matter of personal choice; it is mandated by law.

    According to Wikipedia:

    “The United States Constitution does not explicitly establish the office of Chief Justice, but presupposes its existence with a single reference in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6: “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.” Nothing more is said in the Constitution regarding the office, including any distinction between the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, who are not mentioned in the Constitution.

    The office was originally known as “Chief Justice of the Supreme Court” and is still informally referred to using that title. However, 28 U.S.C. § 1 specifies that the title is “Chief Justice of the United States”. The title was changed from Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by Congress in 1866 at the suggestion of the sixth Chief Justice, Salmon P. Chase.[1] Chase wished to emphasize the Supreme Court’s role as a co-equal branch of government. The first Chief Justice commissioned using the new title was Melville Fuller in 1888.[1] Use of the previous title when referring to Chief Justices John Jay through Roger B. Taney is technically correct, as that was the legal title during their time on the court, but the newer title is frequently used retroactively for all Chief Justices.

    The other eight members of the court are officially Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, not “Associate Justices of the United States.” The Chief Justice is the only member of the court to whom the Constitution refers as a “Justice,” and only in Article I. Article III of the Constitution refers to all members of the Supreme Court (and of other federal courts) simply as “Judges.” ”

    So, it is not simply “common practice.” The use of “Justice” has a source in the Constitution and is mandated by U.S. law. This should probably get “Wally’s” panties all twisted into a knot as he struggles to explain how he prefers the “Constitution” to any common practice. This should be hilarious as this ignorant a**hole tries to squirm out of his own words and attempts to convince other posters here that the worthless garbage he is trying to peddle is worth the money he is so obviously trying to extract from their wallets.

  67. DaveE says:

    I wouldn’t sweat too hard about the “most depressing thing about this episode is to see Republicans rushing to stomp on Trump” thingy.

    A recent poll said that only about 22% of Republicans thought Trump’s comments about the judge were “racist”. And given the Jewish, eh, I mean, “liberal” chronic lying that characterizes “opinion” polls these days, the real number was probably in the single digits.

    Paul Ryan? I mean, c’mon. The guy’s a kosher mobster that no-one is scared of, let alone takes seriously.

  68. dahoit says:
    @Si1ver1ock

    ???Doesn’t Slim own part of it,I read he gave millions to keep it afloat?And the Mexicans would have to fight off the Israelis.

  69. dahoit says:
    @mtn cur

    I think BS was given the ultimatum today,either get on board the hell bitch train or the highway of death is ahead.
    The lying sack of shite MSM has moved on also.
    And of course blacks,Latinos.Jews,Italians ,etc can be bigoted,ask the OJ jury.
    Lawyers always stack juries racially if possible,or change venues.
    And Jewish American? judges have repeatedly fingered Iran for 9-11 when the whole world knows that is BS.Talk about corrupt.

  70. dahoit says:
    @jack shindo

    No one can deny prejudice against Latinos,and yes La Raza is a pride thing,but when they start waving Mexican flags in America and beating up American citizens for their politics,there is something very wrong.
    And it got Trump millions more votes.
    The lying MSM zionuts changed the page quick on the rioting,as usual.

  71. dahoit says:
    @Biff

    Yeah,exactly what I thought after 43s plea for civility.
    We aint dealing with civilized people,these Zionists.They are monsters of their id.

  72. dahoit says:
    @Wally

    Like the dog who licks his ass;Because they can.(stack the court with Jews-They all have the wisdom of Solomon.sheesh.)

  73. @tbraton

    “if the naturalization happened before Coriel turned 18 (1972) and he had a green card at the time”

    I was naturalized in 1964 and did not need or have a green card. My parents where required to pass what amounted to a civics test.

  74. tbraton says:

    “I was naturalized in 1964 and did not need or have a green card.”

    Perhaps you didn’t understand. The claim is not that Judge Curiel was naturalized. Apparently the claim that he is an American citizen rests on the fact that he was born in Indiana. Under the literal terms of the 14th Amendment, that is enough to make him a U,S, citizen, but Anne Coulter has argued in her book (and Donald Trump adopted her position last summer) that the 14th Amendment was never intended to apply to children born in the U.S. to parents who were here illegally. If his father was not a citizen in 1953 when Curiel was born (which is apparently the case)and did not become naturalized before 1971 (when Curiel turned 18), then he was an “anchor baby” not entitled to U.S. citizenship according to Coulter’s and Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. That matter of the “green card” is from the site I quoted from. I haven’t bothered to look at the actual law that may have been applicable at the time since the law has apparently changed often during the relevant period.

  75. J1234 says:
    @Hibernian

    You’re right, there have never been corrupt judges. The Supreme Court has never issued rulings based on racial or political or identity group antipathies or biases. How could I not have seem this? Being a justice system professional really DOES insure justice.

    Pro or amateur has no bearing. People are still people.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Jewish-American anti-Zionist journalist
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored