Anyone who treasures integrity in the federal judiciary cannot help but cringe every time Donald J. Trump complains about the federal judge handling the class-action lawsuit against him on the grounds that the judge is of Mexican descent.
Because American-born U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s parents were legal immigrants from Mexico, Mr. Trump says, the judge is unable to give him a fair trial, since the GOP nominee has devoted so much of his presidential campaign to cleaning up the real scourge of illegal immigration.
Yuck! This is precisely the kind of confusion the left loves to use to dishonestly smear normal, decent Americans who are in no way racist but simply believe in the rule of law. By conflating illegal aliens with law-abiding legal immigrants such as Judge Curiel, Mr. Trump does a massive disservice to a vital American cause and severely undermines his own political campaign.
Also, it makes Mr. Trump sound like he is desperately afraid of what will come out in the civil lawsuit against him over Trump University — an issue that precisely zero of his supporters care about.
But the whole disgusting imbroglio reveals, once again, the secret to Mr. Trump’s political success in the present cesspool of Washington politics. No matter how outrageous, how nasty, how disqualifying Mr. Trump’s words and deeds can be at times, nothing he can offer up comes anywhere close to the festering, rotten carnage left in the wake of dishonest professional politicians over the last few decades.
They are the ones who have left our borders in complete shambles. They have made an utter mockery of our laws. And they have made our federal judiciary into a laughingstock.
And, worst of all, the professional pols’ slavish devotion to demographics and identity politics in every matter means they never stop peddling soft racism. They celebrate their strange racism at every turn. And if you balk at participating in it, they will loudly denounce you as a racist.
Consider: In 2001, a federal judge delivered a speech in which she disputed the notion that judges should “transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law.”
She doubted, in fact, that this impartiality was even possible. Furthermore, the judge shockingly admitted, “I wonder whether, by ignoring our differences as women or men of color, we do a disservice both to the law and society.”
So here is a federal judge openly admitting that she does not believe in the most basic tenet of American jurisprudence. How did such a misguided women ever graduate law school, let alone reach the federal bench? The rule of law, to this judge, is an unattainable farce.
After her stunning admission of uncontrollable prejudice from the bench, was this judge reprimanded? Impeached? Disbarred? Sent back to law school?
No. On August 8, 2009, Sonia Sotomayor was elevated to the United States Supreme Court, where she can exercise her prejudices over every court in the land. Obviously sharing Justice Sotomayor’s view of a court system infected with racial prejudice, President Obama nominated her as part of the Democratic Party’s larger political strategy to win over Latino voters.
Later in that blasphemous 2001 speech, Justice Sotomayor opined how she “would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
In the U.S. Senate, nine Republicans joined every Democrat in confirming Justice Sotomayor to the high court.
And still some people wonder why so many American voters are so eager to line up behind the disruptive earthquake candidacy of Donald J. Trump. And, even scarier, it is all so despicable that it even makes a good person wonder if just maybe Donald Trump might be right about Judge Curiel.
Charles Hurt can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org; follow him on Twitter at @charleshurt.