June 8, 2016

"If you have been watching CNN, you know Anderson Cooper has been reporting about the discovery that a sitting judge is actually a robot."

"His name is Gonzalo Curiel and he is presiding over the Trump University case. Curiel looks human on the outside, and he has passed as human for decades. But Cooper made it clear in his interviews yesterday that while science understands that 100% of humans are biased about just about everything, this robot judge is not susceptible to being influenced by his life experiences. It sounds deeply implausible, but no one on CNN challenged Cooper’s implication that Judge Curiel is the only bias-free entity in the universe. Ergo, he must be a robot."

Writes Scott Adams, saying in what might be the funniest and best observation about judges I've ever read (and being an long-time law professor, I've read a lot).

94 comments:

Big Mike said...

I think that La Raza in all its forms needs to be identified for what it is -- a terrorist organization.

rhhardin said...

What I don't get is the republican establishment latching onto the mexican racist meme.

That's too insane to even be trying to protect themselves from democrat attack. The democrats already come off as insane on the matter and no threat.

Larvell said...

I'm curious what dirt Adams has on Althouse to induce such constant fawning. Or maybe she lost a bet to him.

rhhardin said...

Maybe the republican establishment is afraid of women, meaning women's vote. That's no compliment to women, unless saying women are batshit crazy is a compliment to women.

damikesc said...

Maybe he can next advise why we need any minority judges.

Comanche Voter said...

Can a judge be biased? Ask a big city lawyer who goes into a small town court house and gets "home towned". My favorite experience in that regard occurred when I was a young pup lawyer, back in San Diego after law school. Some members of my college fraternity had gone camping on a federal wildlife reservation outside Yuma Arizona. They were charged with camping in a "posted area". I went out and inspected the site and guess what, It was not in fact "posted". I had the photos to prove it.



I show up for the hearing before a Federal magistrate in Yuma. The complaining federal official walks into the courtroom and the magistrate says, "Hi Tom. How are the wife and kids?"

Things went downhill from there. The magistrate ruled against the young "perpetrators", looked me in the eye, and said, "If you want to do something about it, you can appeal to the District Judge who sits in Phoenix."

Well you take what you can get; sometimes the home town advantage worked for my clients. Not that day. But boy if you ever practice out of town, be sure to associate local counsel and have them sit with you while you try or argue your case. Cheapest insurance policy in the world.

Brando said...

Really, Ann? This is what passes for clever?

Has anyone seriously suggested that any judge is completely free of bias? Adams makes a cute straw man argument. The issue isn't whether a judge (or this particular judge) has biases, it is whether the judge is unable to do his job of making decisions based on fact and rule of law, not letting his biases affect his job. It is why we let white people judge black nationalists, and black judge's sit on trials of KKK members. It is only if we have some reason to believe that a judge cannot be professional and will let their biases affect their rulings that we have a problem.

And so far Trump has not filed for recusal, and has pointed to nothing showing that this judge is biased against him, except the usual Trump whining about everyone being "unfair" to him (remember Fox News, before it got in the Trump tank?). And now Adams, and you, are playing along with this crap.

Chuck said...

What a remarkable idiot Scott Adams is.

He's got one thing right; it may be that Trump expects to lose the Trump University fraud case. Based on what I know, which is only a quick review of the pleadings and a somewhat longer review of Trump's hilariously embarrassing deposition in the case, I know that I expect Trump to lose it. But for the fact that Trump is running for president, and has made himself into a personal brand that can never back down or apologize for anything, I would think that it would be a good case for Trump to settle quietly. But now I don't think that will happen. Instead I think it will end very badly for Trump, and that it will result in a significant judgment for the plaintiffs and that the Ninth Circuit is every bit as bad a place for Trump as in a District Court presided over by Judge Curiel.

What I do not get is Scott Adams' cheesy presumption that Trump's critics somehow need to have a Judge Curiel as a "robot." Scott Adams is utterly incapable of providing a serious tutorial on conflicts of interest for federal trial judges. Such a person would be useful in today's debate. Scott Adams is not a useful person in today's debate, or in much of anything else for that matter.

Judge Curiel is free to belong to the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego (which is not the National Council of La Raza), just like other judges are free to belong to The Federalist Society. And I think it would be evil to try to impugn, impeach or recuse any judge based on such an association.

In another thread, somebody (and very cleverly, I think) mentioned a California state judge requirement that they not belong to the Boy Scouts of America, based on the Boy Scouts' treatment of homoswexuals as leaders.

For the record, I disagree with the state of California on that. The notion that the state of California has a ridiculous standard for judicial qualification does not make a ridiculous Donald Trump "qualifier" any better. They are both rotten, and laughably so.

Scott Adams doesn't get any of that, apparently, and doesn't care. It is an increasingly weird and reality-disconnected blog that Adams is running.

Jack Wayne said...

Nice strawman Chuck. Adams was writing about Anderson Cooper. Take a class on reading comprehension before posting again.

Fernandinande said...

Comanche Voter said...
Can a judge be biased?


Does the Pope shit in the woods? Judges are perhaps the most pompously incompetent group of people on earth.

I had the photos to prove it.

Cue "Alice's Restaurant".

Michael K said...

"What a remarkable idiot Scott Adams is."

Trump haters out in force early. Yes, Scott was writing about Cooper.

Chuck said...

rhhardin said...
What I don't get is the republican establishment latching onto the mexican racist meme.


See, my general counter-argument to any claim that "Republicans are racists," is to say, "Show me the racist statement, or the racist proposal. And quote it accurately."

That countering argument falls flat, when a putative Republican says something in which the supporting quote -- accurately stated (and even recorded on video, and then repeated over again in similar forms) -- is actually racially repugnant.

I might be happy to argue with fellow Republicans about what is best for the Party. But I am not willing to waste much time arguing with Trump supporters who think that it would be a good thing for the Republican Party as it currently exists to be destroyed. (Oh, and let's do please note that Trump doesn't seem to want to destroy the Republican Party. At least not explicitly. Trump has insulted a large swath of leading Republicans. He has pointedly insulted Republican donors, right before he started asking them for donations. But Trump does say that he wants to lead the party, and wants Republicans to win. So the anti-Republican Trump supporters who frequent this blog will need to square that with Mr. Trump.)

Ann Althouse said...

"Judge Curiel is free to belong to the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego (which is not the National Council of La Raza), just like other judges are free to belong to The Federalist Society. And I think it would be evil to try to impugn, impeach or recuse any judge based on such an association."

Are you familiar with the rules of ethics about what organizations a judge can join?

From the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct:

"(A) A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

"(B) A judge shall not use the benefits or facilities of an organization if the judge knows* or should know that the organization practices invidious discrimination on one or more of the bases identified in paragraph (A). A judge’s attendance at an event in a facility of an organization that the judge is not permitted to join is not a violation of this Rule when the judge’s attendance is an isolated event that could not reasonably be perceived as an endorsement of the organization’s practices."

Chuck said...

No; I understand what Anderson Cooper was doing, and I understand what Scott Adams was trying to do as well.

This isn't all that hard.

I don't need to subscribe to Anderson Cooper's methods to make the observation to Scott Adams that what Trump said was plainly, obviously and simply stupid.


Ann Althouse said...

See "California Judges Must Cut Ties With The Boy Scouts."

TCom said...

La Raza Lawyers of Dan Diego links to the National Council of La Raza on its site. But totally not affiliated.

Good work, Chuck. Great detective skills.

Now, did you or your trucon buddies go ballistic on Sonia Sotomayor when she admitted to racial bias? Or are your rhetorical racist guns only for Republicans who don't toe your line?

People are getting a bit sick of only whites being 'racist', Chuck.

traditionalguy said...

Robbery by owning the Judge's favor is the most corrupt part of politics and it always has been. It was the basis of LBJ and friends power in Texas. Where do idealists ever get any other idea... from Walt Disney?

Being an unjust Judge is the biggest Sin of Jewish rulers brought up over and over in the Bible, and the God of Justice doesn't bother to speak out about things that don't happen.

Most cultures have used three judge panels to partially offset that robbery factor. Since the Great Charter was forced on the King by Barons, Englishmen have demanded to have a Jury to protect themselves from Judical robbery by a King's Judge who was at that time submitted to the Judgements of an Italian cleric calling himself Vicar of Christ.

Alexander said...

"(A) A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

That's a nice little bit of legalese there. I suspect that what it means is that it's okay for a black judge to be part of an all-black and explicitly all-black group, a hispanic to be part of an all-hispanic and explicitly only-hispanic group...

But a white judge... well that's invidious.

TCom said...

Also, one of the Hispanic organizations our friendly judge belongs to has called for boycotting Trump.

Is that a conflict of interest yet, Chuck? I thought judges were to avoid even the appearance of impropriety?

Chuck said...

Haha!

See, Professor Althouse, I did not know that. You have corrected me. I was wrong, and you set the record straight.

I did not know that. Now I do.

I did not realize that "sexual orientation" was a 2006 amendment to the rule. That amendment is of course in keeping with law schools' war on all forms of private discrimination against homosexuals. It is one of the great examples of what Justice Scalia talked about in his Lawrence dissent, three years earlier.

This is of course why the public should never, ever allow panels of law school worthies to take over panels of judicial selection. It is why the ABA must be minimized as a force in rating nominees to the federal bench.

The legal profession took sides in the culture wars. As much as I try to defend legal procedure and the legal profession, it is increasingly difficult.

virgil xenophon said...

@Fernandinde/

"...the most pompously incompetent group of people on earth."

Exhibit # Uno would be the SCOTUS finding that CO2--ABSOLUTELY necessary for ALL life on Earth (and what is pumped into greenhouses to make plants grow bigger and faster) and what we exhale with every breath--is a pollutant as the idiots at the EPA have argued. One of the most breathtakingly ignorant conclusions in history,i.e., did any of them not ever take even a sophomore HS biology class, let alone one at the college level?

Rick said...

rhhardin said...
What I don't get is the republican establishment latching onto the Mexican racist meme.


Human psychology is such that being called racist makes the accused want to prove they aren't racist. The easiest way to do that is to join the crowd of racist accusers - presumably when the target isn't themselves. That's why unfounded accusations of racism are so pernicious, and it's why such accusations won't end until they reliably result in a material reduction of job opportunities for the accusers.

Fernandinande said...

AA: From the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct:
"(A) A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination [boilerplate]


Obviously that's just a friendly suggestion. Nudge nudge, wink wink.

Specifically, the goals of SDLRLA are:
• Increase the overall number of Latinos in the legal profession.
• Encourage and support Latino and Latina judicial candidates to apply to the bench
• Advocate for the promotion and retention of Latino and Latina attorneys and judicial officers.
...
• Improve the delivery and access of legal services to the county’s Spanish speaking community.
• Provide role models and mentoring to Latino youth through direct interaction with students and school districts.
• Strongly advocate positions on judicial, economic and social issues to political leaders and state and local bar associations that impact the Latino community.

rhhardin said...

What you want from a judge or anyone is good character.

La Raza activism isn't a good start.

Chuck said...

TCom said...
La Raza Lawyers of Dan Diego links to the National Council of La Raza on its site. But totally not affiliated.

Good work, Chuck. Great detective skills.

Now, did you or your trucon buddies go ballistic on Sonia Sotomayor when she admitted to racial bias? Or are your rhetorical racist guns only for Republicans who don't toe your line?


Well, in fact 31 "GOP Establishment" types did vote against the confirmation of Justice Sotomayor. The nine Senate Republicans who voted to confirm her were Sens. George Voinovich of Ohio, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Kit Bond of Missouri, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Mel Martinez of Florida, Richard Lugar of Indiana and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.

Of that group, only Graham, Collins and Alexander remain in the Senate. Assuredly, none of that small group would have said that Sotomayor would have been their nominee; they would all claim that while they didn't like the nomination, the President has the right to nominate his own choice.

And as for the Conservative press reporting on Sotomayor, you must have not been paying attention if you think that all of the current Trump-hating outlets went soft on Sotomayor. Go back and search the National Review archives on her nomination. Here's one from Ramesh Ponnuru, that ran in 2009, during the Sotomayor nomination process, and that the NRO saw fit to re-run earlier this year:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431340/supreme-court-nominations-undue-deference-senate


TCom said...

Chuck recognizes the judicial emperor wears no clothes and struggles to Defend it, but wants to support an Obama-appointed judge who joins racist organizations that promote his culture and people over others, a judge that gave scholarships to illegals. What an ally of the American people Chuck is. As long as the racist is a Democrat, it's cool, bro!

And Chuck wonders why Trump won. Clueless! Sad!

You see, some of us care more about the harsh truth than not being called mean words made up by the left.

TCom said...

As for the Sotomayor vote, we know very well the old GOPe trick of voting enough to carry Obama's water, then letting other Gop vote no to appear like they are fighting.

We call it 'failure theater', and it doesn't fool us any more.

Rick said...

Brando said...
Has anyone seriously suggested that any judge is completely free of bias?


Anyone who claims Trumps's accusations of bias were racist is making this argument. If actual bias is possible then it is not logical to claim the cause had to be racism. If an action has multiple possible causes why were people certain that one single possibility was the cause? Adams is demonstrating this logical fact.

People were so eager to call Trump racist they pretended the evidence supported their accusations. Now they're being shown it doesn't and they respond by calling their own position a strawman. This is what happens when you rush ahead to the emotionally satisfying conclusion instead of exercising analytical discipline.

Chuck said...

No, TCom. Don't confuse my hatred of Trump, for support of Obama.

You propose to speak for "the American people"? What about the American people who paid thousands to "Trump University" for courses taught by a faculty hand-picked by Donald Trump? (I separate my own personal feelings about Trump, from their earnest reliance on what Trump told them.) It was a lie. Trump never even met many of the "Trump University" faculty. A fraud.

Henry said...

Professor Althouse, I know you have stated your belief in "judicial temperament" as a definable quality. So perhaps the best judges are at least partly robots. Who else can be free from bias?

Writ Small said...

I get it now. When Republicans objected to Clinton's attacks on special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, those Republicans were really saying Ken Starr was a bias-free robot. That's patently absurd. Check and mate, Republicans.

Are there any facts saying Clinton broke any laws? Who cares? Are there any facts saying Trump was exploiting vulnerable people through Trump University? None of that matters because of the whole robot thing.

Really I think Trump scammed people through his University in order to bring on a lawsuit so that he could then devastate his opponents with robot analogies. He is always a step ahead and playing everyone like a fiddle.

Rick said...

What I do not get is Scott Adams' cheesy presumption that Trump's critics somehow need to have a Judge Curiel as a "robot." Scott Adams is utterly incapable of providing a serious tutorial on conflicts of interest for federal trial judges.

Some people are so in the weeds they don't understand what is going on.

pfennig said...

Wisconsin recognizes that if a judge acts like a robot, it might yield absurd results:

In setting child support based on percentage standards, the Court of Appeals has held "in cases where the parties have a substantial marital estate and income far beyond the average income of most people, the robotistic utilization of the percentage standards may give absurd results." Hubert v. Hubert, 159 Wis.2d 803, 814, 465 N.W.2d 252, 256 (Ct.App.1990).

Chuck said...

All you Trumpkins are trying to make some kind of serious case for recusal.

Why doesn't Trump just make that motion, if he has such a good case?

eric said...

Again, it's an eye opening thing Trump has done here.

Maybe I'm just a fool. But I used to believe that Republicans had principles. And I don't mean politicians. This is why, when someone like Hugh Hewitt told me to hold my nose and vote for Arnold for governor, I did so. Because I thought, well, Hugh knows more than me, I'll trust his judgement. Same with McCain and Romney.

But this year, Hugh and chuck and others lost. And now what do they do? Well, they want to make me pay. Pay for going off the reservation.

I mean, think about it. This judge is clearly biased. There is overwhelming evidence that the organization he belongs to is anti Trump. Yet instead of jumping on this judge and pushing back in the culture wars, chuck and others go for the short term strategy of, pile on Trump!

Ugh.

Fernandinande said...

virgil xenophon said...
Exhibit # Uno would be the SCOTUS finding that CO2


Or anything science-y. The SC decisions are out there for everyone to look and laugh at; the more interesting and typical cases rarely make the news...but keep an eye our for judicial reconsidering after the judge's BS gets on the Internet.

My favorite personal pompous incompetent judge story was pretty trivial except for demonstrating obvious judicial incompetence and lack of respect for the law.

Driving down a major road in a city a cop pulled over the person in front of me for speeding, and I also pulled over because I wasn't sure who he was stopping. He said "You just stay there", and wrote the other driver a ticket. When he get back to me I said "My speedometer's broken, I was 'going with the flow of traffic.'" (both true) So he wrote me a ticket for defective vehicle/broken speedometer; no ticket for speeding because he hadn't "radared" me.

This was pre-Internet, so I go to the law library, look up the statute and it has a list of stuff a car should have: headlights, etc. Speedometer wasn't mentioned. At the end it essentially said "If it's not on this list, you don't need it."

So the ticket was bogus and I take it to court. The cop makes clear the ticket was for no speedometer, not for speeding.

The judges reads the law out loud and stops abruptly at the part which shows I was right...so I finish reading it out loud for him. The smarmy little creep got pissed-off and says "I extend the law to cover this case."

I still hadn't fixed the speedo and never did, and they didn't ask about it.

eric said...

Blogger Chuck said...
All you Trumpkins are trying to make some kind of serious case for recusal.

Why doesn't Trump just make that motion, if he has such a good case?


I could care less about the case. What I care about is the cultural push back against all these hyphenated Americans that get to push their cultural and racist agendas and demonize white people and religious people.

I like the attention Trump brings to this and how he highlights the hypocrisy of the left.

virgil xenophon said...

Not a lot of spine in my GOP these days, eric, alas alack..

Howard said...

Trump is closing the deal on the racist voters early so he can move on to his more tenuous supporters who are only moderately racist and don't like open racism.

TCom said...

Don't be too mean to Chuck. He still desperately wants to believe in the ideal fairy tale shining city on a hill he was taught about in Kindergarten.

If he just wishes hard enough, the mass migration of foreigners will all become colorblind and join with us in harmony. Just gotta stamp down those damn whites upset about being discriminated against. It's their fault hispanics make racist organizations. Surely they won't abuse their power when whites become the minority. They will be super nice and give us affirmative action, and let us make white lawyer groups then, right Chuck?

Hagar said...

Sigh.
Trump started out with the rulings he said the judge has made (past tense) against him - and oh, by the way, he is an activist member of La Raza.

mikee said...

Althouse keeps going to the Adams well because like any new thing it is more interesting than longer-established resources, like the NY Times, which could be written with an algorithm of leftist catchphrases, biases and lies of omission and commission any day of the week. Except for the crossword puzzle, which is nice.

eric said...

Blogger virgil xenophon said...
Not a lot of spine in my GOP these days, eric, alas alack..

6/8/16, 11:01 AM


Was there ever or was I just a blind fool?

Michael K said...

"All you Trumpkins are trying to make some kind of serious case for recusal.

Why doesn't Trump just make that motion, if he has such a good case?"

Chuck, you just don't get it. We all know how much you hate Trump and, in spite of saying you'll vote for him, you really want him to lose so you can lambast all those stupid "Trumpkins" for the next four years while you get the "real conservative" elected.

It's a dream, chuck. The traditional GOP is gone. Except, of course, in the minds of those who will not and cannot learn what has happened to the country.

Children are now to be taught in kindergarten about "gender fluidity."

College students don't know who fought the Second World War. Not only who was on our side. They don;t know any of the participants.

The president thinks Austrians speak "Austrian" and that Afghanis speak Arabic.

Michelle Obama thinks slaves built the White House during the Truman administration, when it was rebuilt from the walls.

The world when thousands listened to the Lincoln-Douglas debate for hours is gone.

This is the world of the Kardashians and "reality" shows on TV.

There is a world where our side disguises itself to sneak up on the stupid and surprise them.

I have no idea what Trump will do as president. It is enough To stop the train, when it is headed for the cliff.

I think it was Hunter S Thompson who said:

“The Edge...There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over. The others-the living-are those who pushed their control as far as they felt they could handle it, and then pulled back, or slowed down, or did whatever they had to when it came time to choose between Now and Later. But the edge is still Out there.”

We are headed for the edge.

cubanbob said...

No doubt a White defendant can expect nothing but perfect impartiality from a judge who belongs to a lawyer's organization called La Raza.

John said...

Is curziel a Mexican citizen or national?

He was born both by virtue of his parents.

He is American by birth as well, of course

John R Henry

damikesc said...

I get it now. When Republicans objected to Clinton's attacks on special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, those Republicans were really saying Ken Starr was a bias-free robot. That's patently absurd. Check and mate, Republicans.


The attacks on Starr were based on the scope of his investigation --- a scope that a 3 judge panel kept expanding. It wasn't a Starr decision. And that he was spending a lot of money, which happens when stonewalling is done incessantly.

Anglelyne said...

rhhardin: What I don't get is the republican establishment latching onto the mexican racist meme.

That's too insane to even be trying to protect themselves from democrat attack. The democrats already come off as insane on the matter and no threat.


But it's not insane by inside-the-Beltway standards of sanity. "Establishment" Republicans have been every bit as nutty about "racism" and "anti-racism" as the Democrats.

They just look crazier and stupider than usual to outsiders right now, because they haven't quite caught on that the "racist!" anathema isn't working like it used to.

Chuck said...

Michael K., you may have just set the Althouse blog record for non-responsive blather. You quoted my question, and then spent not one word replying to it.

If Trump has such a good, substantive case for recusing Curiel, why not do it? If the pretrial decisions have been so bad, why not an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit? If Curiel is so ethically challenged, why not a motion to the Chief Judge of the District? (That would be Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz, a Clinton appointee.)



Brando said...

"Anyone who claims Trumps's accusations of bias were racist is making this argument. If actual bias is possible then it is not logical to claim the cause had to be racism."

How so? Trump's trying to argue that the man's ethnicity prevents him (Trump) from getting a fair trial. If we were to accept that, then no one could ever get a fair trial from anyone, ever. Why would a white judge be any more fair, when arguably Trump is going to do such wonderful things for white people? Or for that matter, any American judge since Trump is going to Make America Great Again, so clearly such a judge will go easy on him?

Such is the danger of Trump logic. That crook is just raising this stink to prepare for fallout if he loses the case, and now his fans are trying to turn this into some deeper learning moment about judicial bias.

Mary Beth said...

Judge Curiel is free to belong to the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego (which is not the National Council of La Raza

Look at the "supporters" page of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. Look at the right-hand side where it says "Community". Do you see National Council of La Raza? It may not be the same but they appear to welcome the group's support.

Brando said...

"If Trump has such a good, substantive case for recusing Curiel, why not do it?"

His lawyers know he has no case for that, and told him so. So he decided in the wake of bad news for Hillary, what better thing to do now than try to embarrass every Republican officeholder who endorsed him. Seems the consensus response is "he's a bigot, but maybe he'll sign our budget".

grackle said...

But for the fact that Trump is running for president, and has made himself into a personal brand that can never back down or apologize for anything …

Here’s what they dream of, what they yearn to view on the cables – Trump apologizing. They’ve gotten used to demanding and receiving apologies from timid GOP “leaders.” They’ve grown accustomed to dictating the narrative of every individual that questions their dominance of public opinion.

Judge Curiel is free to belong to the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego (which is not the National Council of La Raza), just like other judges are free to belong to The Federalist Society.

I’ve seen humorous remarks before but this wins the prize. Seriously comparing the Federalist Society with La Raza? Please. La Raza is La Raza, whether it’s a bunch of lawyers or a bunch of rioters.

What I don't get is the republican establishment latching onto the Mexican racist meme.

Where’s the mystery? The GOP establishment usually goes along with whatever the MSM/Democrats see fit to promote. Witness Chuck, one of our commentators, who has consistently sided with MSM/Democrats/eGOP against Trump, although Chuck claims to be a Republican. They would be acting different from their usual behavior if they did otherwise. And deep down perhaps they hate Trump and love the status quo more than they want to defeat Hillary.

Anglelyne said...

Michael K to Chuck: "All you Trumpkins are trying to make some kind of serious case for recusal.

Why doesn't Trump just make that motion, if he has such a good case?"

Chuck, you just don't get it.


Actually I agree with Chuck's point here. If Trump has a case to seek a recusal, why not go for it, or at least just lay out the case, bullet-point bam-bam-bam, instead of off-point gassing? That would accomplish everything he's alleged to be trying to do here (shine a light on the snake-pit that is ethnic activism). What's the downside? Of course, NPR and NYT types are going to go right on with their "racist!" idiocies, but so what?

Chuck said...

Mary Beth said...
Judge Curiel is free to belong to the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego (which is not the National Council of La Raza

Look at the "supporters" page of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. Look at the right-hand side where it says "Community". Do you see National Council of La Raza? It may not be the same but they appear to welcome the group's support.


Look down the right-hand side of the Althouse blog home page. Under "Blogroll." See all those various websites, that Ann Althouse doesn't own, edit or endorse 100% of the time? Are they "all the same"?


Anthony said...

rhhardin said...
What I don't get is the republican establishment latching onto the Mexican racist meme.


That's because they're not really Republicans, they're Democrats. And I'm serious.

Michael K said...

"f Trump has a case to seek a recusal, why not go for it, or at least just lay out the case, bullet-point bam-bam-bam, instead of off-point gassing? "

Has it occurred to you and chuck that he has lawyers to do that ? Maybe they tried. I don't know. Do you ?

Rick said...

Brando said...
"Anyone who claims Trumps's accusations of bias were racist is making this argument. If actual bias is possible then it is not logical to claim the cause had to be racism."

How so? Trump's trying to argue that the man's ethnicity prevents him (Trump) from getting a fair trial. If we were to accept that, then no one could ever get a fair trial from anyone, ever. Why would a white judge be any more fair, when arguably Trump is going to do such wonderful things for white people?


This is your interpretation of what Trump is saying. This interpretation adds something Trump didn't say: that this person's bias is universal and intrinsically a part of ethnicity rather than correlated to ethnicity and relevant in this circumstance because many Hispanics interpret Trump's immigration comments as offensive.

and now his fans are trying to turn this into some deeper learning moment about judicial bias.

I'm not a fan and I don't care at all about his court case, nor do the people trying to claim his comments are racist. I'm trying to turn this into a deeper learning moment about considering what people are saying rather than leaping to conclusions.

Michael K said...

"Blogger Chuck said...
Michael K., you may have just set the Althouse blog record for non-responsive blather. "

Chuck, I would not dare to challenge your record.

Chuck said...

"...Witness Chuck, one of our commentators, who has consistently sided with MSM/Democrats/eGOP against Trump..."

That is simply untrue.

I have consistently criticized Trump. The same way that Jonah Goldberg (the author of "Liberal Facsism"), Steve Hayes (among the elite of nation's leading critics of the Benghazi affair), Glen Beck (the author of "It IS about Islam"), and most of the staff of the National Review Online have criticized Trump.

I DARE YOU to find one word I have written where I have "sided with... Democrats." YOU CAN'T DO IT.

You are welcome to suggest that Democratic criticism OF Trump and Republican criticism of Trump might have some commonality. But it isn't any commonality that I seek.

And I'll be damned if I am going to let folks like you brand me with any "pro-Democrat" labels. That's bullshit and I am calling it out every time I see it.

grackle said...

His lawyers know he has no case for that, and told him so.

I’m going ask the readers: Can you visualize Trump’s lawyers dictating Trump’s attitudes and behavior? Can you fix that image in your minds? Me neither.

I think it is more likely that Trump tells the lawyers what to do rather than the other way around.

If Trump has a case to seek a recusal, why not go for it, or at least just lay out the case, bullet-point bam-bam-bam, instead of off-point gassing?

Maybe Trump is softening up the target before he lets that arrow fly. A motion to recuse the judge would cost Trump nothing even if it fails. So it’s not as if Trump would pay some sort of price for doing so. Of course it would be rejected by Judge La Raza.

Myself, I’m waiting for that point when the MSM/Democrats/eGOP realizes that this latest firing squad has missed its target yet again. The furtive looks of desperation, the edge of anxiety in their bleatings, the frantic flailing around for something, anything to destroy Trump – all are very satisfying, the more so for their rarity.

Chuck said...

And yet, Michael K., you STILL don't man up to the challenge. Make the case for recusal of Judge Curiel. Make the case or stop bitching about it.

Of all the hateful things about Donald Trump, the worst (and this therefore will be saying a lot) is his whiny, bitchy, passive-aggressive rhetoric. Where he blunders his way into disputes by suggesting information that "may" exist, or things that "some people are saying," and then later -- when he gets properly hammered for it -- tries to weasels out of the mess he has made by invoking the qualifier weasel-language he began with.

The guy is a worm, in any substantive argument.

grackle said...

I DARE YOU to find one word I have written where I have "sided with... Democrats." YOU CAN'T DO IT.

Chuck, we don’t have room enough and I don’t have time enough to quote every comment you’ve made regarding your hatred for Trump. This thread and past threads are chock full of them. I think we would have more success and take a lot less time if you would lay out just where you disagree with the Democrats vis a vis Trump’s candidacy. Up to now I have not seen much divergence from the Democrat party line.

And if you cannot disagree with them – well – split all the hairs you want to but your comments speak for themselves.

Henry said...

This is your interpretation of what Trump is saying. This interpretation adds something Trump didn't say: that this person's bias is universal and intrinsically a part of ethnicity rather than correlated to ethnicity and relevant in this circumstance because many Hispanics interpret Trump's immigration comments as offensive.

If Trump is arguing that the judge is biased by lumping him in with "many" Hispanics, you've just restated Brando's case with equivocations.

Trump's defense, in this as in other issues, seems to be that he can't be a bigot (or racist or sexist) because he's so vague and confused.

Chuck said...

grackle said...
...
If Trump has a case to seek a recusal, why not go for it, or at least just
lay out the case, bullet-point bam-bam-bam, instead of off-point gassing?

Maybe Trump is softening up the target before he lets that arrow fly. A motion to recuse the judge would cost Trump nothing even if it fails.


Nonsense. It might not cost Trump anything (or it might!); but the attorneys who file such a frivolous motion could be liable for serious sanctions and discipline.

http://legaliq.com/Case/Macdraw_Inc_V_Cit_Group_Equipment_Financing

Chuck said...

grackle, I won't vote for any Democrat. I don't recommend that anyone vote for a Democrat, anywhere, anytime.

I don't like the people whom the Democrats have nominated for the federal judiciary. I don't like the way that Democrats have influenced the federal budget. I don't like the Democrats' positions on pretty much anything related to governmental policy in the culture wars. I don't like Democrats' overweening federal regulatory policy. I don't like Democrats' obsession with "global climate change."

I didn't like the Democrats' 1994 assault weapons ban. But Donald Trump did!

I have never considered myself strongly pro-choice. But Donald Trump has!

Like almost all Republicans, I'd like a large-scale federal reform of entitlement spending. But Donald Trump is more like the Democrats on that, in rejecting reform!

I like the idea of the Trans Pacific Partnership. Most free-traders like it too. But Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton share the same oppositional position.

So there. Chew on that for a while.

Michael K said...

Make the case for recusal of Judge Curiel. Make the case or stop bitching about it.

Poor chuck. Get back on your meds, chuck. soon.

If you read my comment, and you probably didn't, I was describing why Trump has become the GOP nominee. I don't give a shit if Trump seeks recusal in the Trump U case.

You seem singularly dense on this subject.

Hating and obsession are not good for you chuck.

hombre said...

I began practicing law in 1968. In 1968 judges mostly tried to follow the law. Some time between then and now judges began following their own predilections, not the law.

Even Mexican judges.

Fernandinande said...

Brando said...
"If Trump has such a good, substantive case for recusing Curiel, why not do it?"
His lawyers know he has no case for that, and told him so.


His lawyers probably know the "judiciary" and their enabling politicians are too corrupt to be concerned about a judge belonging to several racist groups which advocate and practice invidious discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, and ethnicity.

Because the "United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary" (sounds fancy!) knew about Curiel's membership in the ">racist clubs before he was confirmed - no problem! And no surprise: SCOTUS has officially approved of codified, systemic and systematic governmental racism at least twice in recent history.

Fernandinande said...

"racist clubs" link.

TCom said...

Hey Chuck, if Althouse linked to a blog also called "Althouse" then association might be in order. Also, lawyer orgs might be more careful about links than, you know, a BLOG by one person.

Especially when the repeating name is "La Raza" and he also belongs to a laundry list of other La Razas and Hispanic groups, one of which calls for boycotting Trump, which you ignored when I pointed it out.

I already made the case for recusal. An organization he is a member of has called for boycotting Trump. That's just ONE reason. Nevermind that the idiot judge UNSEALED THE RECORDS with plaintiff information(!), then pretended it was an 'accident' and resealed after the horses bolted the barn. The guy is at least an idiot with racial hangups, at most a subversive trying to hurt Don.

I'm starting to think people like Chuck just have defective pattern recognition. I think they teach you to ignore your sense in favor of ideology at some of those fancy universities.

hombre said...

Henry: "Trump's defense, in this as in other issues, seems to be that he can't be a bigot (or racist or sexist) because he's so vague and confused." 6/8/16, 12:24 PM

No, Trump's defenses include that it is easily documentable that many illegals are criminals, that it is in the interest of national security to limit Muslim immigration until we know what and who we are dealing with and that a politically active Mexican judge may be biased against him because many Mexican political activists, including the judge's consorts, are expressing bias against him.

Hope that helps.

Chuck said...

TCom;

Explain how the judge's initial order in response to the press' third-party motion concerning unsealing documents evidences any prejudice toward Trump.

It was not a case of the Plaintiffs trying to gain an advantage; it wasn't their motion. And it was not any personal information from Donald Trump that was inadvertently released without redaction.

So tell me where exactly was the prejudice; where is the judicial misconduct aimed particularly at Trump?

Henry said...

hombre: Trump could benefit from your clarity.

eric said...

Blogger Chuck said...
TCom;

Explain how the judge's initial order in response to the press' third-party motion concerning unsealing documents evidences any prejudice toward Trump.


The news media has been careful to use the word "accidentally" to explain why the judge unsealed too many records. I suppose you'd give him the benefit of the doubt as well?

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/06/trump-u-records-unsealed-and-its-not-pretty-sight

See that headline? Maybe the judge thought to himself, nah, no one will use these records for political gain against Trump.

Is that what you believe? Consider me skeptical.

hombre said...

Henry: "Hombre: Trump could benefit from your clarity."

Very good. Lol.

Unfortunately, it may also be true.

Chuck said...

eric, you are missing the point.

Of course, I expect that there will be lots of documentary information about Trump University that will be embarrassing to Trump. But "embarrassing to Trump" is not by itself grounds for a protective order.

And yeah, I know that Mother Jones will look for anything and everything with which to embarrass Trump. That's not even a story.

The real story is whether there was any personal information (home telephone numbers, home addresses, credit card information, birth dates, etc.) that was exposed by accident in the process. I have worked on lots of large document review projects where redactions needed to be made. Mistakes do happen. And when the court has to deal with cases where there are tens of thousands of documents, mistakes can happen on a larger scale. Those errors occur without any indicia of prejudice against Trump. Shit happens.

So you still haven't explained how or why the error in the court's order should be interpreted as a sign of hostility to Trump.

Michael K said...

I'm starting to think people like Chuck just have defective pattern recognition. I think they teach you to ignore your sense in favor of ideology at some of those fancy universities.

I think you may have something there. Others among us are worried about the future of the country.

Chuck is worried about Trump. Period.

in spite of saying you'll vote for him, you really want him to lose so you can lambast all those stupid "Trumpkins" for the next four years while you get the "real conservative" elected.

It's a dream, chuck. The traditional GOP is gone.


I don't know if chuck is capable of understanding.

There are a couple of good articles in the Claremont Review of Books.

Read them, chuck.

Read this:

Because it’s so important not to lose the 2016 presidential election, the famous “Buckley rule”—nominate the most conservative candidate who’s electorally viable—didn’t really apply. The GOP’s path to 270 electoral votes has become so difficult, that is, and the conservative cast of the party so pronounced, that there was no way to justify any course but nominating the strongest candidate, period. Obsessing about gradations of conservatism was pointless and reckless.

If the necessity to nominate the strongest candidate was clear, the attributes that would render a nominee the strongest were not.


And this:

y contrast, Trump and his supporters are, for Antle, “attitudinal conservatives.” Their conservatism is more concerned with solidarity and reciprocity than programs and policies. The Sarah Palin phenomenon was a precursor to the Trump one, in the sense that it’s unclear what policies she really cared about, but very clear that her supporters took a defiant, Okie from Muskogee satisfaction in the contempt she elicited from journalists and academics. The people who disdained Palin disdained her supporters, who responded by embracing her candidacy and celebrity as a way to provoke those detractors.

And this :

Whatever happens in Cleveland, and then in November, conservatism cannot stay the same. One challenge will be to find politicians who, unlike Palin and Trump, have the gift for appealing to the unprotected but also possess the capacity, and take the trouble, to formulate a thoughtful policy agenda. The point of politics, after all, is governance, not anger management.

But the anger is real, and the attitudes of the attitudinal conservatives must be understood. If Republicans a) nominate Trump, and b) get shellacked in November, it will confirm suspicions that the GOP’s future must not entail having the Trump faction drive the bus. At the same time, however, it’s impossible to imagine a competitive GOP coalition unless Trump voters are on the bus, and feel that their ideas about where it should go receive a full and fair hearing.


There is another column on Trump. I suggest you read them.

Unknown said...

You can join these ethnic boosterism societies if you're not of the ethnicity. They're usually very welcoming and it's actually fun and you will learn a lot. I was a member of the Black Law Students Association in law school. I'm white. Nobody cared. I had good friends who happened to be in the group, so I joined. Good way to meet great people whose paths I may not otherwise necessarily have crossed. My white daughter volunteered, while in high school, for a community outreach group run by "Third World Center" students at our local college. She wasn't the only white kid, but she was the only high school student. I'm a married hetero woman (cis, thank you kindly, since I'm sure anyone really cares!). I haven't joined our LGBTQ bar section, but I'm planning to--again, friends, good people, work I support-- mostly, child custody cases.) I do a lot of pro bono work for a disability-activist group. I'm mildly hard of hearing, and they think that's great--a disability! Just be friendly, be cool, you'll see the world is far less us-vs.-them than you would think, just looking in from the outside.

Rick said...

Henry said...
[This is your interpretation of what Trump is saying. This interpretation adds something Trump didn't say: that this person's bias is universal and intrinsically a part of ethnicity rather than correlated to ethnicity and relevant in this circumstance because many Hispanics interpret Trump's immigration comments as offensive.]

If Trump is arguing that the judge is biased by lumping him in with "many" Hispanics, you've just restated Brando's case with equivocations.


What nonsense. Trump recognizing many Hispanics oppose him because of his immigration comments is as racist as a political watcher saying many Hispanics won't vote for him for the same reason. It's not racist no matter how fervently you wish it were. It's an observation of and reaction to reality.

Michael K said...

" Just be friendly, be cool, you'll see the world is far less us-vs.-them than you would think, just looking in from the outside."

Good luck. You might need it depending on how deeply you get into their world.

TCom said...

Unknown, that's what we sometimes call being a useful idiot.

Do you think they'll give you one of those Hispanic only scholarships or let you benefit from affirmative action because you support their race-based group?

All I have to see to know the truth is the reaction to a white Student Union by most of the people who populate the groups you speak of. Unknown, they will tolerate you as long as you are supporting THEIR group. You are not allowed to assert an identity of your own. That's racist.

Also, it's a little fascinating to see how quickly the illegal riots at the rally recently have been forgotten when discussing this case.

It is mildly hilarious to see people trying to convince everyone that there is no 'there' there.

Joe said...

Trump's lawyers say they are fine with Curiel as judge. That made me wonder if they, and Trump, are playing the long game of getting the entire case tossed on appeal.

Mary Beth said...

Chuck,

Supporters ≠ blogroll

EDH said...

Google is your friend...

SEARCH: Stanford rape judge "white male"

About 64,100 results (0.37 seconds)

Rusty said...

Anglelyne said...
Michael K to Chuck: "All you Trumpkins are trying to make some kind of serious case for recusal.

Why doesn't Trump just make that motion, if he has such a good case?"

Chuck, you just don't get it.

Actually I agree with Chuck's point here. If Trump has a case to seek a recusal, why not go for it, or at least just lay out the case, bullet-point bam-bam-bam, instead of off-point gassing? That would accomplish everything he's alleged to be trying to do here (shine a light on the snake-pit that is ethnic activism). What's the downside? Of course, NPR and NYT types are going to go right on with their "racist!" idiocies, but so what?


Because Trump is playing political theater and you're playing Jepardy.
Perception becomes reality or something.

Michael K said...

Because Trump is playing political theater and you're playing Jepardy.
Perception becomes reality or something.


Oh, I think Trump is playing political theater. That's what this election is about.

I keep telling you guys to read that Claremont Review issue.

Whatever happens in Cleveland, and then in November, conservatism cannot stay the same.

Anglelyne said...

Unkown: You can join these ethnic boosterism societies if you're not of the ethnicity.

NCLR is a bit beyond being an "ethnic boosterism" society. But I think it's a safe bet that you know little to nothing about how it or its affiliates operate at the national feeding-trough.

My white daughter volunteered, while in high school, for a community outreach group run by "Third World Center" students at our local college.

[Rolls eyes] My white children have lived in the Third World, and don't treat other human beings as useful pets for silly virtue-signaling games with other dippy white naïfs.

They're also aware that the Third World is full of people, good and bad, noble and base, who absolutely don't give a rat's ass about what some dozy LGBTBBQ-friendly white bint thinks about them.

They're usually very welcoming and it's actually fun and you will learn a lot.Just be friendly, be cool, you'll see the world is far less us-vs.-them than you would think, just looking in from the outside.

Well aren't you special.

One of the subtle comic delights of contemporary American society is the almost daily experience of watching the utterly clueless patronizing the less clueless, on the assumption that the only possible reason for the existence of a point of view different from their own, is that the latter must be some variant of ignorant, incurious monoglot xenophobe who Fears the Other.

The subject awaits its Molière.

Michael K said...

"One of the subtle comic delights of contemporary American society is the almost daily experience of watching the utterly clueless patronizing the less clueless,"

She should read Jason Riley's book, "Please Stop Helping Us." It's not Thomas Sowell but she would probably have a heart attack if she read Sowell.

grackle said...

grackle, I won't vote for any Democrat. I don't recommend that anyone vote for a Democrat, anywhere, anytime. I don't like the people whom the Democrats have nominated for the federal judiciary. I don't like the way that Democrats have influenced the federal budget. I don't like the Democrats' positions on pretty much anything related to governmental policy in the culture wars. I don't like Democrats' overweening federal regulatory policy. I don't like Democrats' obsession with "global climate change." I didn't like the Democrats' 1994 assault weapons ban. But Donald Trump did! I have never considered myself strongly pro-choice. But Donald Trump has! Like almost all Republicans, I'd like a large-scale federal reform of entitlement spending. But Donald Trump is more like the Democrats on that, in rejecting reform!
I like the idea of the Trans Pacific Partnership. Most free-traders like it too. But Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton share the same oppositional position. So there. Chew on that for a while.


All this is good Chuck but if you do not want Hillary elected why do you continually rail against Trump? Words are fine but it’s behavior that tells the tale. If it quacks like a duck, etc.

So … we are expected to believe you are NOT a Hillary supporter, NO WAY, you just happen to comment like Hillary supporter, that’s all. Just one of those curious coincidences that sometimes happen. A surface resemblance that has no significance. We get it.

grackle said...

Nonsense. It might not cost Trump anything (or it might!); but the attorneys who file such a frivolous motion could be liable for serious sanctions and discipline.

The case linked to involved a Judge Chin, who belonged to the Asian-American Legal Defense Fund and was a president of the Asian-American Bar Association. The motion ridiculously made his membership in these professional associations as part of their argument for recusal. There was also a litany of missed or ignored deadlines and other legal silliness on the part of the sanctioned firm before the final deadly-stupid letter. I certainly do not blame the judge in this instance for lowering the boom on those dunces.

But my objection to Curiel isn’t based on his membership in, say, the Mexican-American Bar Association, if there is such a group. Judge Curiel belongs to a La Raza organization. That’s very different.

Maybe my problem is a too curious imagination. For instance I can’t help wondering what would happen to a white judge if a white judge were found to belong to a organization with the words, the “White Race,” in its name.

Also, I wonder what would happen if a black law firm representing a black defendant found themselves in front of such a judge.

Allowing my thoughts to run wild I wonder how the black law firm, the black defendant, the MSM, the Democrats and Chuck would feel if the white judge belonging to an organization named the White Race Lawyers Association continually ruled against the black law firm.

My imagination is good but here is where it fails: I cannot imagine that the black law firm would fail to ask for a recusal. And would suffer no sanctions for doing so.

grackle said...

I keep telling you guys to read that Claremont Review issue.

I subscribe. The latest issue has Trump on the cover. The writers at the Claremont are more realistic about Trump. Other writers at other publications(National Review) prefer to lose themselves in the tall weeds of ideology, trying to chase supporters away from Trump, whine about the perceived inconsistencies of Trump and one pundit even recruiting a reluctant, obscure nonentity as a third party candidate to hand the election to Hillary.

Luckily, saner heads prevailed and the candidate himself, seeing no groundswell of support for his absurd candidacy and much criticism of it, called an end to it. No experienced politician would ever have agreed to such a move in the first place.

This is schizophrenic behavior, possibly brought about by the anxiety-provoking thought of the National Review under a Trump administration becoming even more irrelevant than it already is.

In contrast, the Claremont prefers dispassionate analysis over doomed theatrics. Their viewpoint on Trump is don’t fight the beast; ride the beast. My first issue was the Summer 2011 edition. It had a very interesting article by Angelo Codevilla about Obama, entitled “The Chosen One,” subtitled “The Rise and Rise of Obama.”

Here’s part of what he writes about Obama:

At the White House, on April 27, 2011, Barack Obama announced the release of a "long form" birth certificate showing that he was born in Hawaii's Kapiolani hospital. There seems to be no reason to question its validity any more than that of any dollar bill—except that Obama has played an as yet unexplained shell game with this bill since 2008. Obama had refused to release not only the birth certificate but his academic and medical records. He indirectly, and his partisans most directly, vilified as "birthers" those who asked for this personal information (a term made-to-order, implying racism, stupidity, and lower-class odors).

Nonetheless, by the spring of 2011, several state legislatures, including Indiana's and Louisiana's, had passed or were about to pass bills requiring any candidate for federal office to show the original or original copy of his birth certificate, and providing for forensic analyses of the documents. Obama's April 27 release amounts to what John Ehrlichman called a "modified limited hang out"—some information let out to relieve pressure for the release of more. Had Obama done nothing he might have been banned from the ballot in any number of states; had he delayed too long, any certificate he produced would have been subject to close scrutiny. After the disclosure, however, Democrats argued that any and all requests for Obama's personal information had now been shown to be, in the president's words, "a silly distraction."


But never forget, Trump’s past birther stance was nothing but a bunch of nonsense. Right? I mean that’s what we’ve been told and that’s the assumption of most folks, isn’t it? Why question the consensus?

Apparently there’s no pay-wall at the magazine. Readers, read the full article if you want to see some info on Obama that you’ll NEVER see in the MSM.

http://tinyurl.com/z44oczj

Jonathan Graehl said...

All the Adams hate - yes, he's obviously for Trump, yes he's 100x as interesting as your garden variety shill - drives home to me that people really have entered election season mentality. We're tempted to reject+hate bearers of messages that aren't to our liking more than ever.

I do think there's some truth to the white vs white status wars - as intense as Spy vs Spy. Nobody accuses harder of witchcraft than a suspect witch.

Jonathan Graehl said...

Obviously Trump can't win a legal motion so he won't file it. The legal principle is something like:

1. judge was assigned before Trump began shooting off against illegal immigration

2. if cause for personal animus transpires after proceeding begin (as it did here), then the judge must not recuse himself, even if he wants to (and surely no other judge will force him to do so).

The reason for 2 is that you would get unlimited judge-shopping privileges mid-trial if all you had to do was offend the judge when you didn't like how things were going.

This has nothing to do with the wisdom of making a case to the people of the US that we shouldn't take overly seriously any upcoming rulings in the case, or that the judge (who should and will not recuse) should watch himself because attention is on any appearance of bias in his rulings. Overall I think Trump erred here (in terms of what will help him).