Trump's Racist Judge Attack Expands From Mexicans to Muslims

Presumptive GOP nominee's remarks signal that he will continue to channel the racial and cultural resentments that powered his campaign.

|

Gage-Skidmore / Foter

Last week, Donald Trump said he didn't think a judge with Mexican heritage should preside over the class action suit against Trump University, because the judge's background presented, in his words, an "absolute conflict" because of his plan to build a southern border wall.

Over the weekend, Trump defended that position, repeatedly insisting to CNN's Jake Tapper that the judge, who was born in Indiana, should be removed because of his "Mexican heritage." And he expanded it, saying that "it's possible, absolutely" that, in his view, a Muslim judge would be similarly conflicted.

Prominent Republicans have condemned Trump's remarks, with Newt Gingrich, who has positioned himself as a potential running mate, calling the remarks "completely unacceptable" and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell saying that he didn't agree with the remarks. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who endorsed Trump last Thursday, said too that he "completely" disagreed with Trump's thinking, and described Trump's statements as "just out of left field."

Trump's remarks, however, aren't at all odd or unexpected—for Donald Trump. His primary campaign often channeled racial and cultural resentments. He is simply continuing in the same vein.

Trump opened his campaign last summer by calling immigrants from Mexico "rapists" and criminals, and using the United States as their "dumping ground." He made headlines by proposing a ban on all Muslim immigration to the United States. He refused repeatedly in an interview to disavow the support of former Ku Klux Klan leader and prominent white nationalist David Duke.

The timing of these new remarks—coming after Trump has secured the GOP nomination—suggests that the presumptive Republican nominee has no plans to change his approach during the general election.

As recently as April, Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, had promised otherwise, telling GOP officials in a private meeting that Trump has been playing a part designed to appeal to Republican base in order to win the primary. "That's what's important for you to understand: That he gets it, and that the part he's been playing is evolving." Trump would play a different part during the general election, Manafort said. "The negatives are going to come down, the image is going to change."

Some Republican leaders seem to have believed this. "I think we're much more likely to change him because if he is president, he's going to have to deal with sort of the right-of-center world, which is where most of us are," Sen. Mitch McConnell said last week.

Trump isn't going to alter his rhetoric or his style, because it's not an act. It's central to his character. It's the only way he knows how to campaign, and how to get attention. He's going to continue making racially charged remarks, and continue appealing to the racism and nativism of his supporters.

So, no: Trump's new remarks about the heritage of the judge in the Trump University case aren't coming out of left field. They're a product of the same ugly stew of resentments that has driven much of his campaign so far. They are perfectly in line with his behavior since he started his run. This is who Trump is, and he's not going to change. 

NEXT: Ronald Bailey Comments on The Age of Em at Cato Tomorrow

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Apparently, “tone down the pandering to racist statist fucks that voted you the primary so you can pivot to pandering to centrist statist fucks” isn’t part of Trump’s campaign.

    1. I have pissed off everyone in the Universe (except my 5 best butt-buddies) by denouncing just about everyone!

      No now, NO ONE is qualified to sit as a judge in my case (for me ripping people off), except for my 5 best butt-buddies, ’cause everyone else is biased against MEEEEeeeEEEE!!!

      Make sense to MeeEEeeEEE!!!!

    1. This story is wonderfully entertaining. Trump has this wonderful way of bringing his critics to epic levels of smugness and hypocrisy. The same people who think that Sotomayor was qualified for the Supreme Court because she is a “wise Latina” who brings a special insight into cases because of her heritage, are now fainting on the floor drooling in shock over the suggestion that a Hispanic judge might not give a supporter of closing the border a fair hearing. Identity rules over everything, except when we don’t want it to i guess.

      1. “Wise Latina” crossed my mind as well.

      2. Identity politics cannot cut both ways. Any more that the pendulum can swing away from progressive statism.

        Personally I see two sides to this issue.

        First is principle, where identity politics is always wrong. It is one of the reasons what anyone who calls himself a libertarian should have no truck with progressives.

        But the second is the practical, and since Trump has found himself in court he needs to recognize that in practice identity politics are a very real thing, so it is something he must address. To not use it to your own advantage is unilateral disarmament.

        That Suderman is suitably aghast is just icing on the irony cake.

        Goose, gander, sauce, some assembly required.

        1. The other thing is that though identity politics are evil, they sadly exist. Evil or not, the Democrats have spent 50 years trying to get people to vote and think based on their tribal identity. Is Trump supposed to pretend that didn’t happen?

          Notice Suderman never explains why Trump could reasonably feel this guy won’t give him a fair hearing. Suderman just resorts to meaningless “how dare he!!” invective. Whatever you think of Trump, I defy anyone to truthfully explain whey if they were in his position they would have no worries about the judge being fair.

          1. If Trump wants the judge to recuse himself, he should probably have his lawyer look into it. I’m sure you don’t do it via a CNN interview.

            1. Why? Trump isn’t entitled to express his opinion and can only do it through his lawyer?

              1. “Why?”

                Coz maybe the judge doesn’t have cable?

                1. Or maybe you are idiot who can’t defend his position? Why can’t Trump do this publicly?

                  1. “Why can’t Trump do this publicly?”

                    He can. I just doubt being subjected to an interview on CNN will result in the judge recusing himself, assuming that’s what Trump is after.

              2. Why? [Michelle Fields] isn’t entitled to express [her] opinion and can only do it through [her] lawyer?

                I have never said [Michelle Fields] should shut up. I said she should press charges or shut up. She has pressed charges and I am glad she did. She should have pressed charges.

                Good grief is John a hypocritical sack of shit.

            2. How do you know his lawyer hasn’t already “looked into” it?

              1. Do you think Trump’s lawyer advised this move? Laying down a smoke screen like this is fine for CNN viewers and Reason commenters, but I don’t see it meeting with much success in the court room, where it matters.

                1. And if the judge is truly prejudiced but refuses to acknowledge any potential conflict, then publicizing the issue might be useful.

                  1. “might be useful”

                    A quiet bribe might be just as useful. Let’s not waste too much time speculating about the latest Trump outrage. Another will surely come along.

                    1. Holy shit, you’re a mendacious fuckstick.

                    2. Because shining the light of publicity on something is exactly the same as bribery. Idiot.

                    3. “light of publicity on something is exactly the same as bribery.”

                      I wouldn’t go as far as saying they are exactly the same. Just two different means to an end.

          2. Lost in Suderman’s signaling is the fact that, as a class, judges are perhaps the most arrogant and full of hubris.

            A judge should have MORE humility than the average bear and should not hesitate to recuse his or herself – particularly if the judge is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyer’s Association and is presiding over a case in which one of the principal defendants is critical of mass latino immigration.

            The San Diego La Raza Lawyer’s Association makes no bones about what it does and what it represents:

            “Our cause is to advance the equality, empowerment and justice for Latino attorneys, and the Latino community in San Diego county through service and advocacy.”

            The quoted passage is from the organization’s mission statement. Many of the goals of the group are designed to appeal to ethnic heritage, including an “increase in the overall number of Latinos in the workplace.”

            A judge who belongs to such an organization has no business being a judge – period. A judge who belongs to such an organization certainly should recuse himself from a case in which a defendant has openly advocated for a wall to be built for the purpose of stemming the tide of Mexicans flowing into the country.

            Judicial hubris is far more of a problem than Trump.

            1. I also find it telling that Suderman only views this as being about Trump the politician, never once noting that he is a citizen standing before the court system.

              I guess he doesn’t want to acknowledge the power disparity and risk extending even a smidgen of sympathy toward Hillary’s opponent.

            2. If Donald Trump had murdered his parents, would he be entitled to leniency because he is an orphan? You can’t barnstorm the country, insulting everybody and everything and then demand that the people you just insulted make accommodations for you.

              1. Raising questions about possible lack of impartiality is now a form of “accommodation?”

                Noted.

                Pendulum only swings left.

                1. Trump isn’t raising questions. He’s throwing a racist tantrum (again). He chose to make insulting comments about Mexicans. Now he has a judge of Mexican heritage. Boo fucking hoo.

                  1. Maybe if we had a society where the first generation American-born considered themselves American, and didn’t join with an advocacy group dedicated to advancing the lot of those also aligning themselves as non-American, this wouldn’t be an issue.
                    Say what you will about the negative treatment of immigrants, in the past, but it was a powerful incentive for them to integrate into our culture and, thus not be looked on as “others”.
                    The progressive belief that our culture was so lacking in anything positive, thus not worthy of “imposing” on those, here, not infused with it, has exacerbated the divides between groups, even of native-born ones, and has caused too many problems to be ignored.
                    As soon as we had groups not expected to integrate into the American culture, while everyone was forced into a non-segregated population, these problems were easy to predict.

              2. Wrongthinkful political opinions are JUST LIKE MURDERING YOUR PARENTS!!11!!!!

                1. “Wrongthinkful political opinions are JUST LIKE MURDERING YOUR PARENTS!!11!!!!”

                  Now, now. No reason to get hyperbolic over this….

                2. It’s an expression. The definition of chutzpah is murdering your parents and then begging for leniency because you’re an orphan.

                  It takes a lot of chutzpah to barnstorm the country insulting everybody and everything and then beg for a new judge because you insulted the first one.

                  1. It also takes a lot of chutzpah to claim Trump is barnstorming the country “insulting everybody and everything”. The fact that the judge has affiliations with organizations that are very anti-Trump allows his ability to be non-biased to be questioned.
                    It would probably be more effective for his lawyers to address this. It seems that Trump is a hammer and sees everything as a nail, but his supporters and his success in the primaries show that he is not “insulting everybody and everything”.

                    1. It also takes a lot of chutzpah to claim Trump is barnstorming the country “insulting everybody and everything”.

                      Yeah. I really went out on a limb there.

                    2. Defending hyperbole with hyperbole is not a argument. You can be offended if you do something stupid and someone calls you stupid. Doesn’t mean you’re not stupid.
                      Whether I agree with his positions or not, Trump has a valid legal argument, claiming he doesn’t because you don’t like his positions is wrong.

                    3. “I’ve said too many insulting things for this judge to possibly be impartial, so I should get a new judge” is a “valid legal argument”?

                      That’s the sort of logic that leads to Trump (effectively) demanding he get a straight white male judge as he’s insulted everyone else.

                  2. “It’s an expression.”

                    Thank you Captain Obvious.

                    Now Google ‘inapt.’

              3. Marty Comanche,

                So because Trump said bad things about Mexicans, he is not entitled to a fair hearing in a law suit involving Trump university?

                Is that your final answer? Are you sure about that?

                1. The assumption here is that because Trump has said insulting things about [group], that he *can’t* get a “fair hearing” from a judge that belongs to [group].

                  Let’s say Judge C. (can’t remember the full name) does recuse himself, and the next judge is, I don’t know, a Chinese-American woman. What’s to stop Trump from pulling the same stunt again? What’s to stop him from doing that until he gets a judge he likes? Remembering that all he has to do is publicly be derogatory towards the judge’s ethnicity/sex/whatever, not actually prove that the judge is biased.

                  Sorry, but you can’t just insult the judge until you get a new one. That’s an unworkable standard.

              4. Judicial impartiality is not an “accommodation”. It is a right, regardless of what one has said. Hell, in most criminal cases, the defendant is probably not the most sympathetic of people. They nonetheless have a right to expect a fair evaluation of their case, regardless of what they have said or done. That’s the whole idea.

                1. But the judge’s affiliation with La Raza or the La Raza lawyers opens him up to this. I’m not saying judges can’t participate in political causes, but if their affiliation infers potential bias, then it is reasonable to expect them to recuse themselves. Like him or not, Trump has a valid argument.

        2. And since the judge is affiliated with sister organizations to La Raza, there is little question where he comes down on the identity politics.

          1. He was, after all, an 0blama appointment.
            Anyone think his “leanings” weren’t taken into account when they vetted him?
            “If I has a brother from another father, he might look like Gonzalo Curiel”.
            Noteworthy that Suderman doesn’t use the judge’s name in the article.

      3. The same people who think that Sotomayor was qualified for the Supreme Court because she is a “wise Latina” who brings a special insight into cases because of her heritage, are now fainting on the floor drooling in shock over the suggestion that a Hispanic judge might not give a supporter of closing the border a fair hearing.

        That’s a fair point. Plus regarding this particular judge’s affiliations with just about every Latino/Hispanic fraternal legal society/organization in existence, I’d say it’s pretty damn clear how he would rule.

        1. “That’s a fair point….”

          It’s an idiotic point. Come on, “the same people who think Sotomayor…” might work well with Reason commenters but let’s face it. It isn’t an argument that’s going to convince a judge, regardless of who’s sitting in their family tree.

          1. Why is this not a reasonable point? If you can explain that, please do. But I am sorry “a judge isn’t buying it” offered with no reasoning or explanation doesn’t cut it. Either make an argument or shut the fuck up.

            1. “a judge isn’t buying it” offered with no reasoning or explanation doesn’t cut it”

              Judges are paid to go by what they think. The thoughts of those who approved of Sotormayor are completely irrelevant, and certainly have no privileged place in the judge’s deliberations.

              1. What are you talking about? I don’t think you even know at this point.

                1. “What are you talking about? ”

                  It’s your quote. “The same people…” Just try arguing that sort of nonsense in court. Not Reason’s comment section. A real court of law with a judge and everything.

      4. The same people who think that Sotomayor was qualified for the Supreme Court because she is a “wise Latina” who brings a special insight into cases because of her heritage, are now fainting on the floor drooling in shock over the suggestion that a Hispanic judge might not give a supporter of closing the border a fair hearing.

        And a lot of the same people that proclaimed loudly that Sotomayor’s heritage should be a non-factor are falling all over themselves to explain how Trump’s going after a judge because of the judge’s heritage is A-Okay. So basically, no one believes in anything other than their Team.

        1. Saying that Sotomayor’s race should not have been a factor doesn’t mean that you have to pretend that the other side doesn’t unabashedly engage in identity politics.

        2. The argument against her was not that she would be bad judge because she was Hispanic. It was that her being Hispanic didn’t make her a good one.

          That is not the same as what is happening here. What is happening here is they are saying this guy cannot be fair or appear to be fair in this case because of his connection with the Hispanic Bar Association and his long history of liberal views on immigration. No one is saying he is a bad judge because he is Hispanic. If the guy were a Bush appointee with a long record of opposing open borders, no one would believe Trump couldn’t get a fair hearing.

          Sorry but the two teams are not equally hypocritical here.

          1. If I were Trump’s political adviser I’d suggest one thing, and that would be to oppose identity politics.

            Were I his attorney I’d have to suggest he consider using any tool available, and that would include identity politics.

          2. Sorry but the two teams are not equally hypocritical here.

            Fucking bullshit.

            1. Then explain why. I just explained why no. How about you give it the old college try and make an argument?

              1. Identity politics are identity politics. Wrong is wrong. It doesn’t suddenly become okay because ‘they did it first!!’

                I don’t like that the judge is a part of La Raza. I think it’s garbage. but maybe that’s a reason he shouldn’t be a judge period, not because of poor old fucking Donald dipshit. He made his bed, spewing garbage, now he’s gotta lie in it. Fuck them both.

                1. “Fuck them both” would need to include the judge getting fucked. That only happens if Trump’s argument gets heard and accepted.

                  But I agree, fuck everyone who accommodates identity politics, including the fucking author of this fucking piece and his fucking progressive fucking shitlords.

                2. Identity politics are identity politics. Wrong is wrong. It doesn’t suddenly become okay because ‘they did it first!!’

                  Okay. Now explain to me why it is unreasonable to think a Democratic judge who is both Hispanic and a member of something called the “LaRaza Lawyers” would be biased against a Republican nominee who wants to shut the border?

                  I will ask you, if you were Trump would you be happy with the judge in this case? Second, what about the counter factual I give above? You you really telling me that a Hispanic known for his pro amnesty views who complains about going before a judge who is a member of the Patriot Movement is just a whiner engaging in evil identity politics?

                  Doesn’t identity matter sometimes?

          3. It would surprise me if anyone actually said that Sotomayor would be a good judge because of her Hispanic background. My recollection is that people said that it might be a good idea to have someone with a different background on the Court, to bring a perspective that might be lacking otherwise.

            1. The one formulation is just a restatement of the other with some weasel words.

            2. You literally said the same thing, but longer. In this case, your using “someone with a different background” as a stand-in euphemism for “Hispanic background”.

            3. When you are placed on a jury – if you can’t have figured out a way to get out of it – you are told, to the greatest extent possible, to base your deliberations and ruling on only the evidence presented in court, and that no pre-existing situation, such as your background or ethnicity, should color your final conclusion.
              Shouldn’t a judge be held to the same conditions?

          4. “If the guy were a Bush appointee with a long record of opposing open borders, no one would believe Trump couldn’t get a fair hearing.”
            Maybe, maybe not. But have no doubt, Trump would find *some* way to attack the judge. *Not* attacking people isn’t really a thing that Trump does.

        3. So basically, no one believes in anything other than their Team.

          Not everybody on the right is John and Sean Hannity.

      5. On the other hand, Sotomayor has been the best SC justice on 4A issues. If that’s being a wise latina, I say let’s get more wise latinas.

        1. She is good on those issues because she had been a district judge and understands how the system works.

      6. “Wise Latina” was something Sotomayor said herself in speeches before she was nominated to the court, not really a major argument for her appointment.
        Not saying that identity politics didn’t play a role in her nomination to the court, but the suggestion that some ethnic diversity on the court is a good thing is not really comparable or equivalent to saying that simply because of his ancestry a judge should recuse himself from a case that has nothing at all to do with Mexicans, immigration or anything to which the judges ethnic background might possibly be relevant. And it’s just weird to suggest that just because the judge is of Mexican extraction he is necessarily and particularly biased against Trump. Half of the damn country is biased against Trump.

        1. I missed the La Raza connection at first. So maybe it’s fair to assume that the judge would dislike Trump. I don’t know what the usual rules about a judge recusing himself are, so maybe it’s legitimate to ask.

          1. It is not just that he is Hispanic. Like I said, if the guy were a Bush appointee with a record of being pro closed borders, Trump really would look racist here.

        2. If having a particular ethnic background axiomatically gives you different perspectives, then those different perspectives can as much be called into question as they can be held up as beneficial.

          That is the point, and the equivalence. It does not however make the case for recusal, any more than Sotomayor’s Hispanic background made the case for her appointment to SCOTUS.

      7. Not just that this judge is Hispanic, but that he’s reportedly an active member of the La Raza lawyer’s group, an organization that has prominently stated it’s opposition to Trump.

  2. So if Trump were an Hispanic billionaire who had just clinched the Democratic nomination on a platform of complete open borders with Mexico and amnesty for all those living here illegally and he were being sued in Texas before a white Republican judge who was a member of the Patriot movement, it would be racist for Trump to complain about the judge? And you Peter would be just as up in arms about this as you are now? In bizarro world maybe.

    Why is it unreasonable that a Democratic Hispanic judge who is a board member on a legal organization that only admits Hispanics and calls itself “the race” might not give a Republican Presidential nominee who promises to build a wall on the border with Mexico a fair shake. More importantly, even if he would how does his membership in such an organization not at least create the appearance of bias?

    What exactly is your position here Peter? Is it that someone’s heritage and membership in identity based organizations can never be considered when evaluating a judge’s potential bias? If so, then that seems a bit naive. If not, then what is your bitch here?

      1. This.

        Trump didn’t mention this nearly enough in discussing Curiel’s “heritage”.

      2. It is not so much that he would leave it out as that he apparently thinks his readers are so stupid they would never notice it. I wonder if the people on this board who are always so quick to defend him realize how stupid he apparently thinks they are.

    1. I’m sure Suderman would be fine with a judge who was associated with a white supremacy group presiding over a suit against a Hispanic organization.

      1. I’m sure Suderman would be fine with a judge who was associated with a white supremacy group presiding over a suit against a Hispanic organization.

        This isn’t really a fair analogy. The question over whether the judge is biased isn’t about the organization, it’s about the man whose name is attached to it. Also, Trump University wasn’t founded to be a racial or ethnic advocacy/support organization, as far as I know.

        1. Do you think that a judge who is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers group, with its stated goals, actually can appear to be fair toward Donald Trump given his views and stated policy goals?

          1. While I think it’s possible, I suspect the odds of it happening in reality are very, very low.

          2. I think he can appear to be. Whether he actually is…

          3. What are the “stated goals” of the lawyers’ group that you think are a problem?

            1. Open borders? Amnesty?

          4. “appear to be fair”?
            Now that Trump has publicly accused the guy of being biased, do you really think that people like John are ever going to think the judge was fair if he rules against Trump?

            Face it, Trump has insulted his way into a (PR-wise) win-win. If the judge recuses himself, Trump will say it’s an admission of bias. If the judge continues on, then Trump will just keep banging this drum and his supporters (which are at least roughly half of the Republican party, so a good 15% of the US population on the low-end) will eat it up.

            So, no, to a significant minority of the US I don’t think the judge can “appear to be fair”, through no fault of his own.

            And that, I think, is a very bad precedent. You should not be able to insult your way into a new judge just because the judge isn’t coddling you enough.

        2. You do not find it a bit odd that Trump is denounced as racist for not buying the impartiality of a judge who belongs to an organization whise name means “the race”?

          At the very least it highlights the cognitive dissonance of our civil pieties these days.

          1. I posted a lot of other comments on this very thread. I don’t find it “odd” (this is Suderman we’re talking about, did you read Chapman’s Ready for Hillary piece yet?), I find it insulting to the intellect.

            But there’s a difference between saying no, his argument is not “OMG TEH RACIST”, and saying it is a valid case for recusal.

  3. When a judge is active in a race-based organization like La Raza it does certainly create a conflict of interest in any case involving a subject or litigants that also overlap into the same area. There is nothing wrong with supporting a La Raza, but their views reach into the extreme fringe and can border on treasonous. Trump is absolutely correct to raise it as a concern, but it should have been brought by his lawyers….perhaps it was and he is just parroting.

    This is comparable to a white judge active in an organization called “white lawyer support group” ruling on a suit against a prominent black activist.
    Trump didn’t start the racialist crap we see these days. He is just playing the same game brought to us by our current POTUS among many others.

    1. “When a judge is active in a race-based organization like La Raza it does certainly create a conflict of interest in any case involving a subject or litigants that also overlap into the same area.”

      Having to point this out to average people may mean we’ve hit peak progressive derp.

      1. You have to point it out, because it isn’t in the article. No information on the judge at all. Interesting.

        1. Found out from the comments here. Fuck you cunts for making me have faith in the commentariat.

          1. All you get is he’s from Indiana. Like he doesn’t even identify with Mexicans. No party affiliation. No past rulings. No organization affiliations. Weird.

            1. Didn’t, even, use his name.
              With a christian name like “Gonzalo”, chosen in Indiana, doesn’t seem like Mom and Dad were too concerned about him assimilating.

        2. Because, being Hispanic, he is beyond reproach.

          Not that that’s racist or anything…

          1. A “Wise Latino”?

    2. I’d add that progressives seem to think that the whole purpose of putting Mexicans on a court is so they can’t dish out the vengeance to defendants like Donald Trump when they appear.

      In their world, this is a feature–not a bug.

    3. From my understanding (correct me if I’m wrong), the La Raza Lawyers is not the same organization and is unaffiliated with the La Raza racialist activist group.

      1. Do you not think that terminology is bit of bad PR, no matter what the actual association is?

      2. I know what you’re saying– if I was a black dude in front of a judge who was a member of the “Ku Klux Klambake”, I wouldn’t be worried at all.

  4. “Trump’s remarks, however, aren’t at all odd or unexpected?for Donald Trump.”

    Not quite right. The endorsement, lo even outright support, from GOP luminaries is what could be expected. That party, and its base electorate, knew exactly what they were getting. It’s not his first pass at racism.

    McConnell, Christy, Sessions, Ryan and others own him. They have pandered to this behavior for decades on right wing radio and now the guy their party’s voters want to be President.

    How about you, Peter? You didn’t see this day coming? You should have.

      1. Wait right here John while I click on any link you post. Wait. I’ll get back to you.

        1. Identity politics are a terrible thing.

          1. Keep waiting… I’m gonna click it.

            1. Joe is too short to reach the mouse to actually click it.

        2. Oh, snap!

      2. I’m not convinced by the Jackass Ass = joe from lowell theory, but i laughed.

      3. I’m not convinced by the Jackass Ass = joe from lowell theory, but i laughed.

        1. Shhh! It’s very important for John’s mental state to believe that is who I am. It’s a wet dream he lives by.

          1. It’s a wet dream he lives by.

            It’s a lot less damaging than your wet dream of seeing every piece of left-wing idiocy enacted as law. At least John’s fantasies are harmless.

          2. Where is the racism?

            Last I checked, Hispanics are primarily white, black, red or some combination of the three, but they are not a separate race.

            Are you and Suderman incapable of understanding this?

          3. Joe,

            You admitted it was you. You are a special breed or smug stupid. You can’t hide yourself.

    1. Political party selects vaguely racist candidate for President, party leaders unite behind him anyway.

      What’s the difference between 2008 and 2016?

      1. Suderman’s lack of endorsement this time around.

        Not to say that he’s dishonest, or even a hypocrite. More that he’s a fish who simply cannot see the very progressive waters he is immersed in.

      2. It’s different when OUR guy does it!!!!!

  5. “Last week, Donald Trump said he didn’t think a judge with Mexican heritage should preside over the class action suit against Trump University, because the judge’s background presented, in his words, an “absolute conflict” because of his plan to build a southern border wall.”

    I hate to defend Trump, and I’m not about to defend progressive identity politics either.

    But the flip side of saying that individual judges are qualified to sit on a court because of their race also opens them up to the charge that they’re unqualified because of their race.

    I saw, “a pox on both their houses”, but you live by the racial identity politics sword, you die by the racial identity politics sword. That doesn’t justify what Trump is saying–it’s just a great reason not to use such identity criteria in the first place.

    Don’t tell me that you’re voting for Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman and then tell me that Donald Trump is a racist because he doesn’t want his case heard by a Mexican.

    1. And don’t join an organization whose stated mission is

      La Raza Lawyers of California is an non-profit association organized in 1977 to support Chicano and Latino Lawyers in California and serve as a statewide network for local affiliate La Raza Lawyers Groups. We meet quarterly at various locations around the state and represent 16 different local organizations with over 2,000 attorneys.

      And then complain when someone says you might not act fairly towards someone who is critical of your identity group.

      Moreover, if the “La Raza Lawyers of California” don’t want to be associated with the National Council of La Raza, why did they choose that name rather than just calling themselves “The Hispanic Bar Association of California”? It is like someone calling themselves “The National Socialist Lawyers of California” and then being offended when people associated them with the National Socialist movement.

      1. People saying La Raza isn’t racist has to be the most blatant example of being obtuse morons I have yet seen. The name literally means “The Race” and not the sporting kind (that’s la carrera).

        1. And exactly the same sorts who will routinely impugn the judgement of ‘old white males.’

        2. “racist” has a become a generic term for things progressives don’t like.

          They can talk about the privileges of the dominant culture all they like; if “racist” doesn’t mean discriminating against people or targeting them as enemies because of their race, then we need to invent a new word to describe that.

        3. So are Navajos racist when they refer to themselves as the Dine (meaning “the people”)?

          1. If you don’t think Indians can be profoundly racist then you haven’t spent much time around Indians.

            But many tribes had their own name for themselves, which did translate to some variation of ‘us,’ or ‘the people,’ or ‘the good guys.’

      2. Should Thurgood Marshall have recused himself from the Bob Jones University Supreme Court case? He didn’t, even though that’s a more clear example of the argument used against Judge Curiel, because in the Bob Jones case Marshall (who had litigated numerous civil-rights cases on behalf of Black plaintiffs) was required to decide a case that directly involved the litigant’s segregationist policies. Here, the Trump University case has nothing to do with race or ethnicity.

        Is it only a judge’s race/ethnicity that is disqualifying, in your opinion? Should all Republican-appointed judges recuse themselves from deciding anything related to any Democratic politician, and vice-versa?

        1. The answer that question depends on the judge and circumstances. Should Marshall have? I don’t know enough about Marshall and that case to say one way or the other. I will say that it is not unreasonable or necessarily racist to say that he should have.

          The point is not whether Trump is right or wrong about this judge. The point is that it is not racist or unreasonable for him to claim this judge won’t give him a fair hearing. If you want to conclude that Trump is wrong and that the judge will or that it doesn’t matter since the judge doesn’t have to recuse himself under the rules of judicial conduct, fine. You may be right about that.

          Suderman doesn’t make that argument. Suderman just calls Trump a racist and says anyone who questions the impartiality of a judge based on their race and expressed political views and membership in identity based groups is a racist. And that is just bullshit and what I am calling Suderman out for.

        2. I think a distinction needs to be made between “this judge is biased” and “this judge is biased against the defendant”. All judges are biased. If they could never rule on cases where they had any bias, then they could never rule on any cases period. You generally need to show bias against the defendant. I think there’s some case here, stronger than just “OMG he’s Hispanic!” but not a strong enough one for recusal (as yet).

    2. that individual judges are qualified to sit on a court because of their race

      Is anyone really saying that though? Or is it more that they think that racial diversity is an added bonus or perhaps a tie breaker?

      I don’t want race or ethnic background to be considered at all, but I don’t really think anyone is saying that race, by itself, is a qualification. In any case, appointing judges is a political process, so stupid political stuff will be considered, including identity politics, and there isn’t much you can do about that. A judge recusing himself should be expected to be a non-political process, on the other hand.

      1. What is the point of demanding diversity on the court if not to say that a judge is more qualified than they otherwise would be based upon their ethnicity or race?

        1. I’m not sure that the people demanding diversity care if diversity makes them more qualified in any real way to be a judge. They have just convinced themselves that racial diversity is something worth pursuing in its own right. It’s not about having the best justices, but about some notion of “social justice” and fixing historical ills.

  6. From US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales thinks Trump has a right to question Curiel’s impartiality. From the Washington Post:

    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.

    1. Nice. The race/ethnicity/nationality issue was juicy enought – now we also have corporatist cronyism as icing.

  7. ‘Mexican’ and ‘Muslim’ are not races, Suderman.

    I think you should fall in line and support your GOP candidate.

    1. Tell that to La Raza and CAIR

    2. And yet “racism” against “Muslims” is still a thing, or else Balbir Singh Sodhi wouldn’t have been shot, now would he??

  8. Fuck, Reason.

    Why do you guys feel so bound and determined to make me defend Donald Trump?

    For the last year or so we’ve heard loud and public insistence that any Hispanic who supported Trump was a traitor to his or her ethnicity, that any Muslim who supported him must be deranged. I’ve heard those sentiments echoed here.

    Now, after that’s been in the public discourse for a year, Donald Trump is somehow entirely out of line for saying that, maybe, possibly, a judge with those backgrounds might have a bias against him?

    1. “Trump opened his campaign last summer by calling immigrants from Mexico “rapists” and criminals”

      That isn’t exactly what he said. That might even qualify as a mischaracterization. He wasn’t calling [implied all] immigrants from Mexico “rapists and criminals”.

      Here’s what Trump actually said:

      “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

      http://tinyurl.com/oyozeeq

      His statement isn’t entirely incorrect. While it’s true that Mexican immigrants bring a lower crime rate–than native born Americans of the same economic level–because they come poor, they are of a lower economic level than average Americans and hence have higher rates of violent crime. In short, people don’t leave their homes and families to take jobs in America as gardeners and janitors because they’re at the top of the economic ladder in Mexico. And that isn’t a racist statement. To suggest that they represent a greater burden to the taxpayer by way of social services because of their fertility rate and their lower economic status isn’t racist either.

      1. That wasn’t supposed to be a reply to anybody.

        Sorry ’bout that.

        There was more to it, too:

        Surely, it must be possible to talk about the downsides of immigration from Mexico without being a racist. Facts are facts, even when they say things we don’t like. Personally, I think cheap labor is a fantastic resource and the benefits outweigh the downside–but there are downsides.

        I’m an open borders* guy myself. I will not vote for Trump. But we won’t undermine his case against immigration by mischaracterizing it. In fact, his position on immigration having been mischaracterized for so long may be one of the main reasons why he resonates so well with his supporters. Why believe someone who hears Trump say that illegal immigrants from Mexico are from the same socioeconomic group as middle class Americans–and says that’s not true or that there are no implication of that?

        *Open borders to me means people being free to come across so long as their have reliable identification, we can verify that they aren’t convicted felons, and they can prove they’ve been vaccinated against various communicable diseases. All of this by way of a specific treaty with Mexico–not necessarily with the rest of the world.

        1. *Open borders to me means people being free to come across so long as their have reliable identification, we can verify that they aren’t convicted felons, and they can prove they’ve been vaccinated against various communicable diseases.

          And no fucking welfare state goodies.

          1. Unpossible.

            If you oppose welfare you are a heartless reichwinger who wants to starve little old ladies and children.

            If you oppose welfare for immigrants you are a racist reichwinger who wants to starve brown little old ladies and children.

            But that’s not identity politics.

            1. It’s the libertarian way.

          2. “And no fucking welfare state goodies.”

            It’s certainly true that the more people are forced to pay for each other, the more picky they become about the beneficiaries.

            I don’t care how many people come, really, so long as I’m not paying for them. The thing to remember about that is–it’s a bad reason to pick on immigration.

            There isn’t anything about a welfare queen being native born that makes them any less of a burden to the taxpayer. In fact, suggesting that being an illegal immigrant disqualifies someone from receiving welfare makes it seem as though being a native born citizen somehow entitles you to welfare.

            If you want to go after welfare, get in line behind me. I’ve been gunning for that “entitlement” since I found out what it was. Picking on immigration because you’re against paying welfare is chasing a red herring. If progressives want a tolerant society and open borders, then by all means, they should help us get rid of welfare. Hardly anyone would care about the nationality of our immigrants or how many came here anymore.

        2. Remember Joe Wilson and “You lie!”- it was about whether PPACA subsidies would be extened to illegal aliens undocumented immigrants,

          Go figure…

          Never saw it coming…

      2. Mexican immigrants bring a lower crime rate.

        That does not apply to illegal immigrants from Mexico.

        1. Yes it does.

          Illegal immigrants from Mexico have a lower rate of violent crime than native born Americans–of the same economic class.

          And if people who sacrifice so much just so they can come to America to work at menial jobs and take care of their families back home have a lower crime rate than native born, fifth generation welfare recipients in the ghettos of Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Atlanta, why should that surprise anybody?

          Again, we’re not saying that immigrants from Mexico (legal or otherwise) commit less crime than affluent white people in the suburbs. They commit less crime than native born Americans who make less than $15,000 a year.

          Every study I’ve seen shows this to be true. When illegal immigrants first move into a run down neighborhood, the crime rate typically starts to drop. However, subsequent generations move closer and closer to the mean as they become more Americanized. So when illegal aliens first come to the U.S., they’re much less likely to commit crimes than native born Americans of the same economic level, but their grandchildren commit crimes at the same rate as native born Americans of the same economic level.

          1. “…of the same economic class.”

            As if the distribution was remotely even or random.

            It isn’t, so your point is moot.

            1. What are you talking about?

          2. Illegal immigrants from Mexico have a lower rate of violent crime than native born Americans–of the same economic class.

            Show me the same figures for “white” Americans- that whole “poor black men between 16-40 commit half of all murders” kinda skews the stats

        2. What needs to be qualified with that statement, and most open borders people fail to mention, is that these immigrants tend to stay at lower economic levels for various reasons–they may get pregnant younger and have more children, education may not be as highly valued, etc. It should be noted, like Trump said, that when you’re talking about illegal immigrants coming here, you’re talking about a certain strata of their society. The people who brave the coyotes and cartels and walk miles through the desert for miles at night just so they can get a job as a gardener or a maid are coming from the strata of society that sees working as a gardener or a maid as a big step up in life.

          And I’m glad to have them! Whatever problems we have in America aren’t caused by entrepreneurially minded people who come here with a great work ethic. But just because I’m an open borders guy (as qualified) doesn’t mean I have to pretend that there aren’t any downsides. Facts is facts, and being a good libertarian isn’t about ignoring the facts that we don’t like. It’s about accounting for them.

      3. To my mind, the dumbest thing about that statement is the notion that Mexico is sending anyone. As if it’s a plan in Mexico to send all their rapists and drug dealers to the US.

        1. Mexico isn’t sending us their best.

          He was speaking poetically.

    2. The problem there is that probably half of the judges in teh country are similarly personally biased against Trump, regardless of their race. When you are a divisive public figure like Trump, that’s just how it’s going to be.

      “Racism” probably isn’t the right word, but Trump is making assumptions about a Judges beliefs based on his ethnicity when many others no doubt share the same beliefs about Trump while not sharing his ethnic background or associations with the La Raza lawyer thingy.

      1. True. But, I would say that it’s hardly earthshattering that someone involved with a lawsuit notes every way in which a judge might have a bias against him.

        1. No, I suppose a good lawyer should explore every avenue.

  9. Well, Peter. You got one commenter so far who agrees it was racist.

    Your readership really doesn’t. You got work to do. Hopefully they aren’t emblematic of libertarians.

    1. You got one commenter so far who agrees it was racist.

      Tell us more about Obama’s 2008 campaign.

    2. Considering you’re a total demfag like Tony and Shrike, you may want to take a good look in the mirror before you start throwing around the “racist” insult.

      1. Choose Your Own Adventure:

        1. It’s not racist when black people do it
        1a. It’s also not racist to call a half-black, half-white man black
        2. History of oppression
        2a. They deserve it anyway
        3. It wasn’t racist, because reasons
        3a. White privilege

    3. Identity politics cannot be ‘social justice’ in one direction, yet ‘racist’ in the other.

      Taste of your own poison eh?

    4. His readership isn’t Libertarians, they are Trumpkins who think Libertarianism is about threatening federal judges who rule in accordance to laws you find objectionable.

      1. You’re not one to talk about threatening Federal officials, shithead.

        1. Sorry honey this is not a game you can win.

          1. Yeah, you’re a wonderful person. First you shit on a person who defended you, now you shit on the very principle under which you were defended.

            “I pray to the god of my understanding to remove your character defects. Seriously, get help.”

            1. Wow. Something got under your skin. Would you like to talk about it?

              1. I see you still haven’t fucked off yet. Might I suggest fucking off?

                1. Please, let’s talk about this. I’m a reasonable man. I’m sure we can work it out:

          2. Because you are not rational, honest, nor capable of feeling shame.

          3. Pay your bet, assnugget.

            1. What is this about? Explain:

              1. Based on your left-fellating idiocy and obnoxious dishonesty, some of us assume you are the welshing shriek, returned under a new handle to avoid being called out for being a welsher.

                1. Sorry I can’t help you. Good luck tho, I hope you figure it out.

            2. Not sure why it’s so hard to believe that there are annoying commenters who aren’t Tulpa or Shrike.

              1. Not sure why it’s so hard to believe that there are annoying commenters who aren’t Tulpa or Shrike.

                Indeed. We’re surrounded by idiots in every state from coast to coast, on TV, on the internet, and on the radio, but there’s only two jerkoff commenters here? Not buying it.

                1. I agree- Shriek ain’t smart enough to be AM (no matter how dumb AM is)- and I don’t think Jack and Ass is “joe p boyle”…

                  Who’s the latest Tulpa candidate?

  10. The question is whether or not the judge’s beliefs have caused him to rule along racial lines in the past. James McReynolds, a Supreme C0ourt justice in the early part of the 20th century was known to say outrageous things about Jews, blacks and women yet there is not a single case in which he took part that ever demonstrated prejudice against any of these groups.

    Trump is a whiny little shit and complaining about unfairness is his stock and trade. Whenever he knows that he has absolutely no rational basis for his actions he resorts to whining and blaming others. If Americans put this scumbag in the White House they will deserve everything that happens to them.

    1. James McReynolds, a Supreme C0ourt justice in the early part of the 20th century was known to say outrageous things about Jews, blacks and women yet there is not a single case in which he took part that ever demonstrated prejudice against any of these groups.

      So you would be totally okay with judge doing such things today and call any Jew or black person not wanting their case to be heard before such a judge?

      Shut up Bob. You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to lie and insult everyone’s intelligence. You know more believe what you are saying than you believe in unicorns.

      1. I could not possibly insult your intelligence. One cannot insult the non-existent.

        1. Tell us more about how you would have no problem with a judge today acting like McReynolds. Again Bob, stop making arguments that you don’t believe.

        2. So you would be totally okay with judge doing such things today and call any Jew or black person not wanting their case to be heard before such a judge?

          Well?

          1. McReynolds had enormous respect for the law, in particular, the rule of law. It enabled him to administer justice impartially, even to those for whom he had no respect. There were no known cases of him letting his prejudices overcome his judgment.

            Words are cheap, actions are revealing. Has the judge in Trump’s case ever been known to let his prejudices interfere with his judgment? Has he ever based a judgment on racist notions? Does membership in La Raza immediately disqualify him from judging any case concerning non-Latinos?

            Unlike Trump, I insist on proof of bigotry before I condemn someone.

      2. Except in this case, it’s not the judge who is saying the outrageous bigoted things. Or has the judge in the Trump case been saying outrageous, bigoted things about Trump or old, rich, white guys or something?

  11. Trump believes the judge has made bad rulings against him and these are driven by how his ethnic affinity interrelates with Trump’s comments on illegal immigration. Which part of this is supposed to be racist? It seems every Trump critic right and left has asserted he is going to do poorly with Hispanics come November, and this assertion is based on the exact same connection. Why is it racist for Trump but not his critics?

    1. Principals, not principles.

    2. It’s asinine bullshit all the way down. The problem is the assholes on both sides who reflexively defend *their* team. Fuck all of them, including the shitheads here who don’t get it.

  12. If you have the monumental self delusion to create and defend a huge scam like Trump U then of course you will attack anyone who tries to hold you accountable. And yes this behavior is indicative of his decisions while in office – if a judge challenges him then ‘Off with his head!’ His list of Supreme Court justices is meaningless and anyone who uses that as a rationale to pick him over Hillary is delusional.

    1. But it’s a “witch hunt” to look into Hillary’s flagrant violation of national security laws. Isn’t that right, dajjal?

      1. Sorry Trumpkin. I’m voting Libertarian.

        1. Who was talking about how you vote, moron?

          1. Wow you are angry. I’m sorry for whatever happened to you.

            1. I’m not angry. I’m pointing out that you’re a hypocrite of the highest order, and a fool to boot.

              1. It’s shreek, just ignore it.

                1. It’s shreek, just ignore it.

                  Half agree. This isn’t shrike, but he’s on about the same mental level.

              2. Yikes. Sorry for whatever you think I did to you. But time to get over it. 🙂

                1. I will “get over it” when you start being an on balance honest and intelligent commenter, or you disappear. Either one works for me.

                  1. Are you still angry that I called your hero Flemming Rose a pansy? Sorry but he’s a pansy.

                    1. Come back when you sober up. Or don’t.

    2. If you have the monumental self delusion to create and defend a huge scam like Obamacare then of course you will attack anyone who tries to hold you accountable.

      If a judge challenges him then ‘Off with his head’ at the next State of the Union.

      Anyone who thinks Hillary won’t be the same is delusional.

      1. Hillary is bad but Trump is far worse. She demonstrated her demeanor at the Benghazi hearings – respectful but firm.

        1. respectful but firm

          “WHAT DIFFERENCE, AT THIS POINT, DOES IT MAKE?”

        2. *snort*

        3. Wait, are you serious?

          1. Yes, he really is that stupid and dishonest.

        4. You know who else had a firm demeanor?

          1. I know! I know! Oh, you said firm “demeanor.” Never mind.

            1. You know who else had a firm misdemeanor?

    3. “…anyone who uses that as a rationale to pick him over Hillary is delusional.”

      I’m not willing to let those people off on an insanity plea. They know what they’re doing.

  13. No one should ever have a judge in their case who is a member of the Opposite Team!

    Therefore, I propose we replace all judges with libertarians right away. Libertarians aren’t even on their own side most days, so all possible conflicts of interest are avoided!

    1. That’s just more identity politics, no?

  14. One more snotty, anti-Trump screed from Reason and I’m voting for Trump.

    I don’t particularly like Trump, but he’s not what worries me (as I’ve said a dozen times already) it’s the motivation within the masses that has put him where he is. But pearl clutching abhorrence at Trump while breathtaking levels of racism are pushed DAILY by the Federal government go unchecked by reasonistas doesn’t wash anymore.

    I’m all for a colorblind society. But the Racial Industrial Complex is pushing the envelope too far. If sensible people can’t put the breaks on it, then senseless people will.

    1. I hate everything about Trump. He’s not remotely libertarian. He’s an absolute fucking slimeball. But he’s the slimeball the news media, pundit class, and no small share of the voters deserve. That fact alone makes me hate him more. But he is the symptom, not the cause.

    2. What makes these snotty screeds so offensive is that they never admit to even the possibility that it might be a bad idea for the Hispanic Lawyers of California to form a organization called “The Race” or for federal judges to join such an organization. It guess it is too much to ask of people like Suderman to stand up and tell judges they should drop their membership in identity groups once they get on the bench or that identity groups perhaps not choose such offensive names for themselves.

      Nope, the whole thing is just Trump being a big mean racist. Everyone else is without blame.

    3. “I’m all for a colorblind society. But the Racial Industrial Complex…”

      They’ve gone full circle and have now rejected the idea of a colorblind society. They even think colorblindness is now racism.

      1. I fear this is true.

        Not too long ago, I think this country was on the doorstep of a balance acceptance of everyone. But the R.I.C. had too much to gain, too many jobs within their NGO’s, too much power attained with the Rackateer State to end their endeavors (hence the “complex”).

        I think racism is irrational. The basing of decisions based exclusively on genetic variations that are largely irrelevant as to the quality of a person, is superstition. But it’s irrational when a skinhead bleats on about his theories, but it’s just as racist to have a black person rant in their own right. Racism is Big Business. It’s Big Government. In twisted “markets” of government largess; in short, race pays.

        If rational people can’t forge the way against racist nonsense, IN EVERY MANIFESTATION, then the irrationalists will win the day. The country will tear itself apart when the economic realities settle down upon us.

        1. The country will tear itself apart when the economic realities settle down upon us.

          Too late, already well on our way.

          1. The settling of the $70,000,000,000,000 imbalance hasn’t fully settled in on the masses. They’re still just as deluded as ever. This is the toxic mix brewed up over the last 50 years – thin skinned entitlement (including those espoused by the Racial Industrial Complex) that has people running each other over due to road rage, while everyone is soon to learn they are about half as wealthy as they thought they were.

            As I’ve said before, Trump is the chancre that manifests the disease, the one most everyone is trying to ignore. The high fevers, shakes, physical wasting, and brain damage are all still stretching out before us.

            The Racketeers control and a rational course to cure the disease is the last thing on their minds. That only leads me to believe they are so ignorant of history themselves that most of them don’t have a clue was to what is coming.

    4. One more snotty, anti-Trump screed from Reason and I’m voting for Trump.

      No one gives a fuck.

    5. One more snotty, anti-Trump screed from Reason and I’m voting for Trump.

      That’ll show ’em. Make sure you post your ballot selfie.

  15. Weird that this article would omit the fact that the judge is on the board of directors of La Raza. That seems like an incredibly important point and an obvious conflict of interest.

    1. It’s not weird if you knew Suderman’s history of being a shrill lying sack

  16. I’m sure Suderman would be cool with a judge who had a long history of ties with the Brady Campaign trying a case where the family of a shooting victim was suing a gun seller.

    Because when judges put on that Fair Witness Robe they shed all previous bias and ideology.

  17. This judge is biased! This judge can’t rule fairly! Judges like this should be fed feet first into woodchippers!

    (How’d I do, fellow ‘Libertarians’?)

    1. Pay your bet, fuckstain.

      1. Yikes. The Trumpkins are out in force this morning.

        1. Every morning.

            1. I’ll tell you in a minute. Wait right here while I click on a “wtf” link. Wait here…

        2. That’s about as intelligent as Shrike yelling BUUUUSSSSHHHH anytime someone here disagrees with him or calls him out.

          1. Has anyone linked Trump to Bush yet? I’m sure they’re connected somehow!

            1. The same commenters who reflexively defended Bush defend Trump, but that is admittedly a small sample size.

              1. How many of the former are even left at this point? Shit, I wasn’t even commenting yet back then and I’ve seen a good many commenters disappear.

                Was R C Dean a Bush apologist?

                1. Bush wasn’t a cult of personality like Trump or Palin, but Bush policies were defended until they could switch and complain about them being Obama policies.

                  1. I vaguely remember a sort of personality cult around him around the time of the Iraq invasion. The gist of it was that he had such huge balls that he wasn’t afraid to do something retarded, more or less. Though I don’t know if that’s a personality cult or just a mass outbreak of drooling retardation.

                    1. Of course, pretending that the existence ISIS has nothing to with Gulf War II might as well be Bush sucking.

                    2. I vaguely remember a sort of personality cult around him around the time of the Iraq invasion. The gist of it was that he had such huge balls that he wasn’t afraid to do something retarded, more or less. Though I don’t know if that’s a personality cult or just a mass outbreak of drooling retardation.

                      In retrospect, Andrew Sullivan’s jump off the cliffs of insanity was quite foreseeable.

  18. He’s going to continue making racially charged remarks, and continue appealing to the racism and nativism of his supporters.

    So Trump supporters are racist but in San Jose we see Hispanics attacking white Trump supporters while carrying Mexican flags?

    1. When reason calls for amnesty, are they appealing to the racism of Hispanic supporters? It would seem so by Suderman’s logic.

    2. The Mexicans with the flags and this La Raza group are just pissed because they’re only 4 feet tall and American guys have taken all their women.

    3. Racism only goes one way. When it goes the other way it’s “social justice”.

    4. Or maybe both some Trump supporters and some La Raza activists are racist. That seems much more likely. Did anyone claim that only Trump supporters are racist?

    5. Trump’s supporters ARE racist and SO ARE the Hispanics attacking them.

      That’s why it’s called a “race war”.

  19. “Your Honor, I hate *all* judges, so no judge can possibly be unbiased enough to try me, so I just ask that I be released.”

  20. OT, but indulge me in a little armchair lawyering:

    In contrast to disparate treatment, which focuses on the intent to cause sex-based results, disparate impact focuses on the consequences of a facially sex-neutral policy or practice. Under this theory of discrimination, the core inquiry focuses on the results of the action taken, rather than the underlying intent.46 Because of this difference in focus, evidence of a discriminatory intent or purpose is not required. Indeed, “intent” is not an element in the disparate impact analysis.

    I said in the AM links that biological women face a unique problem in accommodating transgender women in sports: not only do transgender women vastly outnumber transgender men, but trans-male athletes are not going to compete on the same level as biological males. So a facially neutral policy of trans-acceptance will result in outcomes favoring trans-female athletes over their biologically female competitors, while biological males have no such problem. Unless trans-rights activists want to challenge the basis for sex segregation in sports, which has everything to do with biology, not gender, they’re going to be a little tied up explaining away the disparity.

    1. I suppose the logical accommodation is to have cis male leagues, which should be a glorious clusterfuck. is Is this really what the courts have to be used for? I mean, fuck.

      1. It is just getting fun. So far it has been track and field and non contact sports. Wait until some cis male shows up and wants to play a contact sport like Lacrosse or Rugby with women. I think the right group of cis males could do pretty damned well in a women’s rugby league.

      2. Isn’t that essentially what we’ll have going forward? Trans-male athletes are going to be drummed out at the higher levels unless administrators meddle on their behalves. College-level sports are going to go pretty much unchanged for men.

        1. There was a post-op tranny who did women’s MMA a little while ago. It went badly for the girls.

          1. Well, there’s a shocker.

    2. I posed the question to a recent law school graduate I know. I think her progressive sympathies outweigh her lawyerly tendencies, because she’s a little incensed that I brought it up at all.

      In fact she lol’d me coming out of the gate, which irks me. Any time we discuss law she gets a condescendingly smug tone, because she belongs to the elect caste of priests who preside over the ancient scriptures and we laymen who dare attempt to interpret it for ourselves are pitiful cretins. It’s really obnoxious.

      1. You spoke to some 25-year-old infant like it was a grownup?

        1. Nah, she’s my age, just shy of thirty. She doesn’t need much prodding in the progressive direction, but this probably doesn’t help.

    3. Instad of men and women’s sports, maybe have different classes based on testosterone level, the way they have weight classes in boxing and wrestling?

      1. Fuck it. Desegregate sports. May the best man win.

      2. This would also solve the “is the athlete taking this drug for legitimate medical reasons or for performance enhancing purposes?” problem. Now they can take the drug, but it may shift them into a higher competition class.

  21. We’d better cool it with the anti-Trump slams: if he wins, he will hold up King Tut’s Space Knife and the stars and cosmos will pour from his eyes.

    1. All this proves is how badly Reason is in the bag for Hitlery and how badly they want to get invited to the cool Beltway cocktail parties with David Weigel. Don’t you know anything?

      1. I don’t think they are in the bag for Hillary. If they were, they would surely be able to come up with better arguments against Trump than they do. They are not even trying anymore.

      2. I think you need to understand what “proves” means.

          1. nm. I think you were probably being sarcastic.

            1. Just a bit.

              1. Sorry the total derp around here threw me off.

    2. In his Tower of Yuge dead Trump lies dreaming.

      1. Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Trump R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn!

        1. +ChTrumpthu

  22. “Mexican heritage.”

    Yeah, someone complaining about a judge’s “Mexican heritage” would be racist.

    But in all the Trump quotes you link to he is complaining about the judge’s participation in an organization that shows his “pride for his heritage”. I could see how pride for a heritage COULD be a conflict of interest. If my opinions of British or French culture was widely known (Brits have a bland, boring culture, as expected of anyone who must add VINEGAR to their food to make it palatable, and the French have a shitty, sleazy culture and snobbishly think their culture is great), and THEN I was expected to appear before a judge who was known to have great pride in their British and or French ancestry, I might be concerned about their bias.

    And this is coming from someone who would generally like to see the culture of the United States (though not necessarily its politics) become more Hispanic, because Hispanic cultural elements (like food, art, music, and architecture) are vastly superior (IMO) to the current US equivalents.

    ‘And he expanded it, saying that “it’s possible, absolutely” that, in his view, a Muslim judge would be similarly conflicted.’

    Trump said a Muslim judge COULD, not WOULD be similarly conflicted. REALLY guys?? YOU DON’T NEED TO TWIST TRUMP’S WORDS TO MAKE A GOOD CASE AGAINST TRUMP. DON’T BOTHER DOING IT.

    Take it from me, a Hispanic-culture-loving guy who believes the Quran is the literal word of God. You guys are overreacting.

    1. All that being said. While I don’t think Trump’s concerns are necessarily unwarranted nor racist, I do think his concerns are stupid. The judge’s bias being the reason the suit is going forward makes no sense, considering this judge picked up the case before Trump was even running for the Republican primaries.

      1. But that was before Trump’s comments about Mexican rapists and building a wall.

    2. This just proves that you’re a Trumpkin, AddictionMyth told me so.

    3. Every lawyer drama show on tv has, at least once, pushed the theme that the judge is biased against the plaintiff or the defendant or their lawyers. The usual complaint is that the judge took money from the defendant’s big business friends so, sure, he’s going to rule against pollution damages. Or that the judge is pissed because defendant’s lawyer backed his primary opponent or beat her in a case back when said judge was district attorney.
      Because Hollywood has conditioned viewers to think judges are biased, it isn’t at all reasonable that judges should recuse themselves whenever there is a more than slight perceptual chance of unfairness to one side or the other.

      1. “or beat her in a case back when said judge was district attorney”

        To be fair, lawyers are petty vindictive assweasels (especially the ones that work for the government), so I could totally see that biasing the judge.

  23. Trump has done a tactically smart thing. It would be nice to have this case and further revelations put off until after the election. If he can goad the judge into saying or doing something intemperate, then there’s grounds for demanding recusal and everything is delayed.

  24. Jackand Ace, mtrueman, and Addiction Myth. Trump is like flypaper for the mentally deficient.

    1. Ask mtrueman about Mao or the Holocaust some time. Enjoy the show.

      1. “Enjoy the show.”

        Thanks for singling me out yet again. Anyone wants to start the ball rolling on some Monday morning Holocaust denial, come up with your best estimate. How many Jews?

        1. 6 million, give or take. It’s not controversial, you idiotic weaselfucking scumbag.

          Tell me something. When Holocaust-denying pieces of shit like you downplay the number of dead Jews, what are you trying to accomplish? Is it something stupid like that the Jews should stop whining because only a million of them were murdered? Or is it something even stupider?

          1. Or is it something even stupider?

            I’m gonna guess this one. I’m also pretty sure we would all be stupider for having read it.

            1. I would love to know the reason, even though the mere act of attempting to comprehend the sheer stupidity of the reason would surely damage my brain. It’s worth the risk. I am a man of science.

          2. “6 million, give or take.”

            I’ve explained this before. This is not the number of Jews killed by Nazis. Rather it is an upper limit accepted by those who’ve studied the matter. That’s why you never see the figure of 7,000,000 bandied about, or even 6,000,001. The upper limit is 6 million, which means the actual number is almost certainly smaller and nobody can tell you what it is. I know 6 million has a lot of emotional valence attached to it, what else could account for Warty’s tantrum “you idiotic weaselfucking scumbag”? But he doesn’t understand the meaning of the figure he’s grown so attached to.

            1. So it’s that the Jews should stop whining then? Because only 6 million of them were murdered?

              1. Possibly slightly less than 6 million, Warty. 5,999,999 million dead means Jews are just being crybullies.

                1. Martin here doesn’t mention that the commonly accepted lower bound is 5 million. I wonder why that is?

                  1. Because JEWS! Now do you see?

                  2. ” I wonder why that is?”

                    No big mystery, I assure you. I invited my readers to come up with a figure (How many Jews?) and you responded with “6 million, give or take.” I hope that eases your wonderment.

                2. 5,999,999 million dead means Holocaust Denial.

              2. “So it’s that the Jews should stop whining then?”

                You want to make that argument, go ahead. I have no problem with whining. After all, I responded to your whining promptly and politely.

                1. And, you still don’t articulate what your actual point is.

                  1. “And, you still don’t articulate what your actual point is.”

                    Can’t you just enjoy the show like Warty? Since when does there have to be a point to everything?

        2. Too many. I’ll say too many.

          Ray Charles meanwhile…hardly any Jews! He killed so few Jews!

          /louisck

  25. In case it wasn’t completely obvious before, the people who defend the people who issue threats against federal judges aren’t Libertarians, they are fascists and Trumpkins. Their goal is to discredit the party by making it seem extreme and crazy. They will resort to increasingly desperate displays of anger and bullying. However they are zombies – they don’t realize that they already lost. I sometimes feel sorry for them, though I shouldn’t.

    1. Just like Popehat felt sorry for you – until you did your thing.

      1. What was my ‘thing’? (This should be good!)

      1. Don’t stop him, he’s on a roll.

  26. Another day, another bitchy fact free hit piece from Reason’s bottom bitch.

    1. You wrote this?

      1. Engage your brain. If this was anybody but Trump, you’d want some intellectual honesty. You don’t find the omission of the La Raza membership to be salient?

        1. WHENCOME DID THEM FAGGOTS IN WASHINGTON START LETIN MEXICANS BE JUDGS

        2. LA Raza has nothing to do with you being a piece of shit shill.

  27. Popehat rules on Trump/Curiel:

    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.

    1. Ken White is a smug douchebag who thinks that question begging counts as argument. Is this judge technically under the rules of judicial conduct required to recuse himself? No. And White makes a reasonable analysis of why that is so. What White doesn’t mention, because he is a dishonest smug half wit, is that just because the judge isn’t required to recuse doesn’t mean it is reasonable to think he should . Judges are generally petty tyrants and since they write the rules they are not going to recuse themselves in any bu the most egregious cases of bias.

      Just because the judge doesn’t have to recuse himself, doesn’t make Trump’s claims that he should necessarily invalid or unreasonable. There are all kinds of examples of judges who probably ought to recuse certainly seem bias but where they are not required to. And White has to know that.

      God White is annoying. This piece is a bit better than usual for White. It actually represents the level of legal reasoning found in a good 1L, which is a high bar for White and he didn’t mention how he is a 1st Amendment Lawyer that I could see.

      1. Right now, I am going at it with him.

        1. You go Mike. But don’t be surprised if bans you. That is what he did to me.

  28. “I don’t know why all these fucking Spics hate me.”

    -Donald Trump

    1. “They’re not Spics, they’re greasers and beaners, get it the fuck right!”
      – Donald Trump’s Hat

  29. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $98 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week…

    ____________________________ http://www.earnmore9.com

  30. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $98 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week…

    ____________________________ http://www.earnmore9.com

  31. you do realize that this Judge is a member of a La Raza lawyers group so if nothing else he should have to disqualify himself form this case

    1. While I think Trump’s argument has more merit than Suderman and others give it, and La Raza is an odious organization, the case for recusal is quite tenuous. You generally have to establish a direct connection between the judge’s positions or affiliations and the defendant.

      1. Does it indicate a conflict that would require recusal? Nope. Does it indicate a likely level of prejudice that would interfere with Trump’s ability to obtain fair and impartial rulings? Seems like it.

        1. Are you arguing with me, or just rephrasing agreement as a question?

      2. “You generally have to establish a direct connection between the judge’s positions or affiliations and the defendant.”

        Sure. In a court. But on CNN or Reason we answer to a higher standard.

  32. Trump and the Clinton’s must really be close friends because he is doing everything he can to give her the election. I also find it odd that his whole family are registered Democrats yet he claims to be a Republican.Hmmmmmm?

  33. I will never again ask for Team Trump to assemble. My bad, my blunder.

    1. You must atone by bare backing a Hillary supporter.

  34. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.OI3..

    ====== http://www.BuzzWage6.com

  35. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    ???????? http://Usatoday.nypost55.com

  36. Reason Foundation is located in Escondido? 50% of the city population is latino: Here’s esco.

    It’s dense with crime, too. Maybe you guys do have a point on its liberal bent lol.

    1. Oh shit.. looked at the map again.. I guess esco isn’t so bad…

      1. ….

        That map ain’t right. Meth? Is doing meth not a crime? Jesus.

  37. RE: Trump’s Racist Judge Attack Expands From Mexicans to Muslims
    Presumptive GOP nominee’s remarks signal that he will continue to channel the racial and cultural resentments that powered his campaign.

    Gee, what a surprise!
    A fascist engaging in racist thoughts.
    Who would’ve thought that?

  38. Setting the precedent that if you publicly insult a group enough, that any judge belonging to that group must recuse themselves, is a terrible precedent.

  39. Why can’t one media outlet examine the rulings of the judge and lay out the case for whether or not the rulings are biased (obviously they would need an unbiased reporter to write it up). If this judge is truly biased then they should be replaced but I would guess from all of Trumps previous statements I have read is that he lost some rulings and wants someone to blame (and that person will never be him) and this judge and his heritage makes a nice whipping boy.

    1. You are assuming the “one media outlet” has personnel remotely qualified to review a slew of cases and asses the the impartiality of the presiding judge.

      If any of them were truly capable of such work they wouldn’t be working for ‘the media.’

  40. Even forgetting the stupidity of not understanding (or the pathetic dishonesty of pretending not to understand) that neither one’s national heritage nor religious beliefs are synonyms for “race”…

    How exactly is it a stretch to suggest that anyone who belongs to an organization with “La Raza” in its name is likely to have a bias bug up crawling way up his ass while presiding over a case involving Trump?

    1. Is the plaintiff Spanish speaking? If the case involves two Anglo-phones (English speakers) then it’s a wash.

  41. you have no clue of what you are writing…youre a libertarian useful idiot!!

    you are clueless to the church in Mexico..and for that matter anywhere!!

    United States District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the man presiding over the class-action lawsuit against Trump University, is a member of the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego and oversaw the gift of a law school scholarship to an illegal alien.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/06…..ers-group/

    1. “is a member of the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego and oversaw the gift of a law school scholarship to an illegal alien.”

      None of the other defendants who’ve appeared before this judge seem to have any problem with his acquaintances or how he spends his spare time. Trump is going to have to do better than that if he’s serious. That’s a big if. Like Romney and McCain before him, I suspect Trump really is not all that interested in becoming president.

      1. None of the other defendants who’ve appeared before this judge seem to have any problem with his acquaintances or how he spends his spare time.

        How many of the other defendants are running for president and proposing to Build a Wall to keep the foreign members of La Raza from illegally immigrating to the US?

        Does anyone want to argue that more likely than not, the judge *isn’t* biased against Trump? Lots of pants shitting outrage, but I don’t see anyone denying the obvious inference that more likely than not, the judge is likely biased against Trump.

        Let’s see:
        How popular is Building a Wall with people of Mexican heritage in the US?
        How popular is Building a Wall with judges appointed by President Obama?
        How popular is Building a Wall with people in organizations with “La Raza” in it’s name?

        Not so much.

        1. “How many of the other defendants are running for president and proposing to Build a Wall to keep the foreign members of La Raza from illegally immigrating to the US?”

          You mean being a celebrity entitles him to special treatment in the courts. I disagree, unless he can show with a preponderance of evidence that this judge has an established history of court-room bias in favour of Mexicans, other than donating his time to the cause, Trump hasn’t got a case. If there is bias, Trump has enough money and the motivation to root it out.

          “the judge is likely biased against Trump.”

          So what? Rising above ones personal feelings is part of being a judge. Unless you can prove otherwise, the assumption is that this judge is able to overcome any personal distaste for Trump and rule dispassionately. Trump is not the first man to face a judge who finds him personally distasteful.

          1. If by “special” you mean “on a case by case basis” then yes that is exactly what is required.

            1. “If by “special” you mean …”

              No, I meant that Trump, even though he is a celebrity, deserves to be treated as though he weren’t a celebrity, just like a normal person.

          2. I think it is a fair expectation that Judges have no business being involved in advocacy. The very mission statement of the organization includes activism to help the Hispanic communities. A laudable goal, surely, but a racialist one. Is this the kind of stuff we want our judges being active in?

  42. Controlling immigration by making the country look so bad no one will want to come here.
    Nothing else has worked, might as well try this.

  43. na?tiv?ism
    noun 1. the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of [would be] immigrants.

    I consider that a fundamental premise of representative government – that it represents the interests of those it governs over foreigners.

    Government of, by, and for the people it governs.

  44. This would set a terrible precedent if the judge were to recuse himself. He took this case before Trump went around spouting anti-Mexican immigrant statements. I don’t really care what your stance is on this, or even that the judge is likely to have at least negative feelings toward Trump (though I don’t think that means he would be unable to be impartial by any means). What matters is you should not be able to make a series of very public statements after a judge has been assigned to your case, and then claim the judge was offended by your statements and so should be recused. That sounds like a clear path to a “choose your own judge” situation. If the case had started after the statements were made I would be more sympathetic to Trump’s point, but given the order of things I think he should just have to live with the consequences of his actions – you know, personal responsibility and all.

    Also, if this were a reason to remove a judge from a case completely unrelated to the controversy then I think we would have a big problem in that most judges have at least some affiliation with a major political party – which by this logic would be grounds for removing basically all judges from essentially any case where someone involved has a known political affiliation.

  45. I don’t seem to find the name “La Raza” in this article. “La Raza” only seems to pop up in the comments. The issue is not Americans of Mexican ancestry, and the progressives know it. It’s all about the communist organization called “La Raza,” and everybody knows it.

    1. This is starting to pan out as a karma thing, isn’t it?

  46. The judge has ties with the group La Raza, the San Jose police chief also has ties with them, thats why he didnt stop the violent protesters….Trump was right to speak out..

  47. Presumptive GOP nominee’s remarks signal that he will continue to channel the racial and cultural resentments that powered his campaign.

    Trump will continue to state obvious truths that give the Progressive Theocracy conniption fits.

    Pants shitting hysteria will ensue. Then it will be “well, he has a point, but it’s still racist”. Then it will be, “yeah, of course he’s right, but he’s still a racist”.

    Any person capable of intellectual honesty will admit that yes, most likely a hispanic judge, appointed by Obama, and a member of a La Raza branded organization, is biased against the guy who wants to Build The Wall.

    Duh. Only a delusional putz would deny it.

    But we’re still in pants shitting hysteria mode, so carry on, Suderman.

    1. “But we’re still in pants shitting hysteria mode”

      No, it is yourself who is in pants shitting hysteria mode. And to make it worse your shit is wet and rinky and your trousers are white. Trump is not the first man to face a judge who finds him personally contemptible, it happens every day.

      1. “Trump is not the first man to face a judge who finds him personally contemptible, it happens every day.”

        Of course it doesn’t. Which is why Trump’s pointing it out reverberates with the voters. Many have had to deal with this crap even though our judiciary is, in the ideal, fair and balanced. The identity and grievance politics of the last decade have only made it worse and many are sick of it.

        1. 4″I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 100usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better!Learn More From This Site…

          ======> http://www.Today70.com

  48. Seriously Reason. You’re probably still the sanest website in the world to get news from, but I just don’t understand how you can be so retarded sometimes. You’re named “Reason,” which one would think implies reason might be used when writing articles.

    Donald Trump is a dumbass in plenty of ways… So why do you have to go out of your way to misinterpret what he’s saying in the same way the lefties do? You’re making him out to be even worse than he actually is, which is quite an accomplishment! On half of the “horrible” stuff he’s said I thought he was genuinely awful after reading articles here, until I read the full story elsewhere, or got more info from the comments section. Stick to the facts, and don’t get into these intentionally misinterpreted slam fests. The Donald provides plenty of legitimate reasons to bag on him, you don’t need to go making shit up!

  49. Start making extra cash from home and get paid weekly… By completing freelance jobs you get online… I do this three hours every day, for five da?ys weekly and I earn in this way an extra 12000 bucks each week…

    i work through this Website.. Go Here.._____________ http://www.earnmore9.com

  50. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.selfcash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.