Wednesday, June 8, 2016

ARCHIVE TRUMP COURT CASES: June 5 - June 8, 2016

Live Blog


The court case against Trump University will come to a head only in November 2016, the month of the actual US Presidential elections. Trump could settle, but refuses to do so as a matter of principle. The Democrats see in the case a main argument against their rival. Reason to follow the interesting issue up close. Update: Trump eventually settled the case. 

US District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel is a member of the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego and oversaw the gift of a law school scholarship to an illegal alien. (More)

Donald Trump has just released a statement regarding the controversy. Unfortunately common sense has now sunk so deep, there is confusion about political activism, heritage, ethnicity, induction and deduction.
It is unfortunate that my comments have been misconstrued as a categorical attack against people of Mexican heritage. I am friends with and employ thousands of people of Mexican and Hispanic descent. The American justice system relies on fair and impartial judges. All judges should be held to that standard. I do not feel that one’s heritage makes them incapable of being impartial, but, based on the rulings that I have received in the Trump University civil case, I feel justified in questioning whether I am receiving a fair trial. Over the past few weeks, I have watched as the media has reported one inaccuracy after another concerning the ongoing litigation involving Trump University. There are several important facts the public should know and that the media has failed to report. (More)

June 7, 2016


In the previous posting we had a look at the rationalism on display by the GOPe and even some 'smart' Conservatives like Gingrich. It says that ancestry, heritage and DNA do not matter, ever! The problem is in the 'ever'. Another point of view is on offer in an item on RealClearPolitics. There's precedent --  even tradition -- of criticizing and questioning independent judges. Ancestry and heritage do matter! But if has nothing to do with racism. "To many liberals, all white Southern males are citizens under eternal suspicion of being racists. The most depressing thing about this episode is to see Republicans rushing to stomp on Trump, to show the left how well they have mastered their liberal catechism."
Trump's real hanging offense was that he brought up the judge's ancestry, as the son of Mexican immigrants, implying that he was something of a judicial version of Univision's Jorge Ramos. Apparently, it is now not only politically incorrect, but, in Newt Gingrich's term, "inexcusable," to bring up the religious, racial or ethnic background of a judge, or suggest this might influence his actions on the bench. But these things matter. Does Newt think that when LBJ appointed Thurgood Marshall, ex-head of the NAACP, to the Supreme Court, he did not think Marshall would bring his unique experience as a black man and civil rights leader to the bench? Surely, that was among the reasons Marshall was appointed. (More)

June 5, 2016


What is La Raza's "Nation of Aztlan"? 

The case against Trump U. will be with us for the entire USA2016 campaign. The judge has postponed the hearing until November, smack in the middle of the actual Presidential elections. Therefore it can't hurt to explore and follow the matter closely. Liberals -- and that includes some 'Conservatives' like Speaker Paul Ryan and former Speaker Newt Gingrich -- are referring to the correct premise that a man's heritage, extraction, race or DNA has nothing to do with his ideas. But they are taking the logic a step further. They are throwing context and deduction aside and come up with the fallacy that THEREFORE every member of a minority is impartial BY DEFINITION! Clearly that is not the case! The Hispanic judge presiding over the Trump U. case -- Judge Gonzalo Curiel -- certainly isn't! Let's have a look at the context.

Trump wants to build a wall between the US and Mexico, ban illegal migrants and send those in the country back to their country of origin, back to the end of the line to start an actual legal immigrstion process. The Judge is a member of La Raza. What is La Raza? In the video above the movement is explained. It is a nativist, racist organization that believes the south western part of the US is Mexican terrority on the grounds that only original peoples have a right to their native land.

If we continue that logic to the fullest extent, no man on earth has any right to land, considering every people once was an "invader". The irony is, that liberals have accused Trump of nativist nationalism. That is clearly not the case. But smearing Trump with racism evidently suits Hillary Clinton's narrative.

A second meme rife among liberals is that there are somehow two La Razas: a bad, racist La Raza and a good, inclusive La Raza. This is like saying the Nazi SS was a different organization than the Waffen SS. These were truly different organizations, but they were both still Nazis!

Donald Trump told reporters at an epic news conference in New York on May 31 that he could settle the court case involving Trump University, but that he doesn't want to "because I'm a man of principle." So the case is here to stay for the remainder of the campaign.

Interestingly former White House counsel and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales -- a Hispanic, non member of La Raza -- wrote the following commentary in a WaPo op-ed: 
As a private citizen, Trump has a right to his opinions, regardless of whether others agree with them, or whether others consider them wise, foolish or even dangerous. Trump, of course, is more than a private citizen; as the likely nominee for president of a major political party, he speaks with a voice that carries much weight and, if successful in November, will influence millions of people. Because of this, some commentators have condemned Trump’s suggestion that Curiel step down from the case. These voices have, quite rightly, emphasized the importance of upholding our independent judiciary from baseless attacks by high-level persons from other branches of government. An independent judiciary is extremely important. But that value is not the only one in play here. Equally important, if not more important from my perspective as a former judge and U.S. attorney general, is a litigant’s right to a fair trial. The protection of that right is a primary reason why our Constitution provides for an independent judiciary. If judges and the trials over which they preside are not perceived as being impartial, the public will quickly lose confidence in the rule of law upon which our nation is based. For this reason, ethics codes for judges — including the federal code of conduct governing Curiel — require not only that judges actually be impartial, but that they avoid even the “appearance of impropriety.” That appearance typically is measured from the standpoint of a reasonable litigant. It is crucial to understand the real issue in this matter. I am not judging whether Curiel is actually biased against Trump. Only he knows the answer to that question. I am not saying that I would be concerned about him presiding over a case in which I was a litigant. And if I were a litigant who was concerned about the judge’s impartiality, I certainly would not deal with it in a public manner as Trump has, because it demeans the integrity of the judicial office and thus potentially undermines the independence of the judiciary, especially coming from a man who could be president by this time next year. But none of these issues is the test. The test is whether there is an “appearance of impropriety” under the facts as they reasonably appear to a litigant in Trump’s position. (More)

Face The Nation playing gotcha on grounds of an objective fallacy, as pointed out above. 

Related USA2016