Tag Archives: Gonzalo Curiel

legal news

Stand tall, Judge Curiel

This is awesome news!

A U.S. district judge who Donald J. Trump dissed as “a Mexican” has been given the authority to preside over a case involving the wall that the president wants to build across our nation’s southern border.

I cannot think of anything cooler than this — politically speaking, that is.

Judge Gonzalo Curiel will decide the merits of a case that questions whether the federal government can circumvent environmental laws to build the wall.

The Trump administration says it can; plaintiffs have filed suit saying that the administration would violate the law.

The irony of this just drips with richness. Trump disparaged the Indiana-born Judge Curiel during the 2016 presidential campaign, calling him “a Mexican,” alleging that he couldn’t judge another case involving Trump University fairly and impartially. Curiel is of Mexican heritage. However, he is as American as Trump, or me, or you, or anyone whose ancestors came to this country from somewhere else. I believe that constitutes the vast majority of U.S. citizens.

According to The Huffington Post: 

The case consolidates three lawsuits filed last year by the state of California, environmental groups and Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.). The suits challenge the waivers granted by Congress in 1996 and 2005 allowing the federal government to bypass certain federal and state laws, including environmental regulations, for border security reasons.

The suits claim the waivers are outdated and should not apply to Trump’s border wall plan. California said the construction of the wall could do “irreparable harm” to the state’s wildlife. Legal experts say the groups that have brought the lawsuits will bear a significant legal burden to prove their case.

Curiel gets to decide who’s right. Isn’t that just outstanding?

I cannot to hear the blowback if Curiel rules against the administration. Nor can I await the reaction if the judge rules in the president’s favor.

As one who believes that judicial matters should be decided according to what the law allows — and if they follow the U.S. Constitution — I will have faith that Judge Curiel will interpret the law fairly.

Also, as one who doesn’t favor construction of the wall, I will accept whatever decision the judge delivers, even if it disagrees with personal political beliefs.

I would hope the president could do the same thing if the ruling goes against him.

He won’t.

International news, legal news

Karma might have struck once again

Oh, the irony is too rich to ignore.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel is going to hear a case involving a young man who says he is being deported illegally by the federal government.

Judge Curiel isn’t just any ol’ federal jurist. He happens to someone whom presidential candidate Donald John Trump slammed for being of “Mexican heritage” while he was hearing a case involving the defunct Trump University.

Curiel now gets to hear a case regarding the deportation of Juan Manuel Montes. He got the assignment by luck of the draw, it turns out. Montes, who’s now 23, is one of those “Dreamers” who came here when he was 9 years of age and had obtained DACA status.

Why is this case so tantalizing? It’s because Curiel is an American; born in Indiana and educated in the United States. He is a fine jurist. He’ll now get to hear a case brought by a young man who contends that the federal government didn’t provide sufficient documentation requiring him to be sent back to Mexico.

Judge Curiel’s citizenship didn’t stop Trump from defaming him during the 2016 presidential campaign by alleging that his Mexican heritage disqualified him from judging the Trump U case fairly. Trump, you’ll recall, opened his presidential campaign by declaring his intention to build a wall across our southern border to keep all those immigrants who were coming here to commit heinous crimes.

Stand tall, Judge Curiel

The wall? Blocking immigrants from Mexico? The judge’s parents are of Mexican descent? Why, of course he cannot judge the Trump U case fairly and without bias, according to Donald Trump.

As it turned out, Trump settled that matter with a $25 million payout to those who complained about the “education” they received. The president didn’t admit to any wrongdoing … quite naturally.

How will Judge Curiel do with the Montes deportation case? I am confident he’ll judge the case the way judges are supposed to judge such matters.

If the case goes against the federal government, though, expect the president to launch yet another tweet tirade.

Don’t you just love it when karma bites back?

legal news, national news, political news

Trump draws bead on another federal judge

Let me see a show of hands: Has anyone out there ever seen or heard a president of the United States attack individual members of the federal judiciary?

I didn’t think so. Me neither.

Donald “Smart Person” Trump is setting a new — lower — standard for behavior.

A judge in western Washington state, James Robart, has stopped the president’s ban on refugees from certain countries. The Department of Justice is seeking an injunction against Robart’s ruling. That’s all normal reaction.

What is quite abnormal has been the president’s Twitter tantrum, calling Robart a “so-called judge” and saying if “anything happens” because a criminal sneaked into the country, we should blame the judiciary for it.

You’ll recall how as a candidate for president, Trump took on U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel because of his Mexican heritage. Curiel is presiding over a case involving Trump University. Trump said the judge couldn’t adjudicate the matter fairly because “he’s a Mexican, OK?” Actually, the Indiana-born jurist is as American as Trump.

Trump needs lesson on presidential behavior.

Trump as a candidate behaved disgracefully. Now that he’s president, he is expected to conduct himself with dignity and decorum. He isn’t. Trump continues to launch into these Twitter-borne tirades against a duly appointed federal judge.

Indeed, it is reasonable to question whether the president is trying to coerce another member of a co-equal branch of government into doing his bidding.

I believe such activity — if it’s ever alleged — would be illegal. As in against the very laws the president took a solemn oath to defend and protect.

political news, State news

Mauro: Texas is ‘no battleground’

Garry Mauro knows Texas perhaps as well as any politician who calls Texas “home.”

So, when the former state land commissioner says that Texas isn’t a “battleground state” in the upcoming presidential election, it’s time to throw in the towel and ceded the state to Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

Or is it?

http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Clinton-campaign-rep-Texas-not-a-8131516.php?t=c8877145b14b6b00f7&cmpid=twitter-premium

Mauro has signed on to help Hillary Clinton win the presidency. He’s as loyal a Democrat as you’ll find.

I used to know Mauro pretty well. He’d call on us at the Beaumont Enterprise back when he served as land commissioner. He had placed coastal erosion and protection as a top priority of his office, an initiative we appreciated way down yonder on the Gulf Coast.

The last time I saw him was in 1998 as he ran for Texas governor against incumbent George W. Bush. Mauro lost big.

Then he left elected public service.

Even though Mauro believes Texas is still a red state, he is offering a glimmer of hope for Democrats in the form of the man who’s going to lead the GOP ticket this fall.

As he told the San Antonio Express-News: “The prospect of a Clinton race against billionaire Donald Trump — who has offended a variety of groups including Latinos and women with his intemperate comments — will make it easier to get out the Democratic vote, Mauro agreed.

“’With Donald Trump on the ticket, we now have a way to get our voters out,’ he said.”

Therein lies the chance upon which Clinton will depend if she hopes to turn Texas from Republican red to possibly Democratic blue.

The key might lie in the Latino vote. Let’s face it, Trump has managed to deliberately offend that demographic group. He’s called illegal immigrants criminals; he’s declared that an American judge cannot adjudicate a Trump University lawsuit solely because of his Mexican heritage. Trump is going to “build a wall” along our southern border.

Will that bloc of voters turn out? Mauro hopes so, as does Clinton … obviously.

The flicker of cynicism in me makes me wonder if Mauro isn’t low-balling expectations with the hope of pulling a major surprise on Nov. 8.

Hey, he’s a politician, right?

national news, political news

Trump faces rare intraparty resistance

trump

History will tell us, I believe, that Barack Obama’s presidency will be deemed a success.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of that well might be that the president’s successful two terms in office will come without Obama ever developing the kind of relationship he needed with members of Congress within his own party.

He’s seemed to have operated as a Lone Ranger.

Not only that, but he has faced open hostility from members of the opposing party, the Republicans on Capitol Hill. Sen. Mitch McConnell once declared famously — or infamously — that his first priority during Obama’s first term was to make him a “one-term president.”

McConnell failed in accomplishing his first priority.

The president’s second term is drawing to a close.

One of the people seeking to succeed him is Republican Donald J. Trump. From my perch, Trump’s potential presidency is looking more remote all the time.

However, just suppose that the sun will rise in the west and Trump manages to win the fall election.

How in the name of reaching across the aisle is Trump going to get anything done?

I ask not just because Democrats are going to fight him every step of the way. He’s going to get plenty of resistance from within his own party. Yes, Republicans in Congress are likely to battle with their own guy in the White House … presuming he ever were to get there.

The resistance Trump continues to get from within the Republican Party simply astounds me. Leading GOP lawmakers, such as McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, issue condemnations of Trump’s statements. They call him a racist over his remarks regarding federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel; they contend his anti-Muslim views are “un-American”; they wonder out loud whether he has any governing principles, let alone principles that comport with anything resembling standard Republican orthodoxy.

Trump keeps telling us he’ll have “great relations” with this or that demographic group — those he has insulted. He tells us Republicans will fall in line because, by golly, he’s the president and they’ll march to the cadence he’ll be calling.

His lack of understanding of government shows itself. You see, he doesn’t get that the presidency is just one “co-equal” branch of government. Trump would call whatever cadence he wishes and his “friends” in Congress would do what they damn well please.

I suspect strongly that the resistance he would encounter would make Barack Obama’s battles look almost quaint.

 

national news, political news

Can Donald Trump really ‘change’ his ways?

trump

I’m trying to understand an admonition that’s coming from leading Republican officeholders, strategists and assorted loyalist as it pertains to the party’s presumed presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump.

They want him to “change.” They dislike the name-calling, the insults, the innuendo, the reckless riffs that pour forth whenever he takes the podium as he campaigns for the presidency.

If he changes, they say, they might be able to endorse him. They might actually campaign for him. They’ll support the candidate more than in name only.

I keep wondering: How does a man who’s nearly 70 years of age do that?

What’s more, how do Americans who’ve heard the astonishing things that he’s said ignore them if — and this remains a y-u-u-u-u-g-e stretch — Trump actually becomes a more presentable candidate for president?

It’s like the judge in a trial who tells a jury to “disregard what you’ve just heard” from a criminal defendant or from a prosecuting attorney. Sure thing, Your Honor. We’ll just blot that out of our memory.

House Speaker Paul Ryan has endorsed Trump, but with reservations. He dislikes intensely the candidate’s racist views on U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel and his assertion that Curiel’s heritage disqualifies him from presiding over a lawsuit brought against Trump over his defunct “university.”

Ryan has called Trump’s assertions “racist” in nature, but he’s going to support him.

A lot of Americans — millions of them, in fact — aren’t going to forget those comments. They won’t forget the insults Trump has hurled at women, or his mocking of a reporter’s physical disability, or his assertion that Sen. John McCain is a war hero “because he got captured” by the North Vietnamese.

They won’t forget his plan to ban all Muslims from entering the United States, or his claim that illegal immigrants are coming here to commit crimes.

And then we have the lies, such as when he said he witnessed “thousands upon thousands of Muslims” cheering when the Twin Towers tumbled down on 9/11.

So, he’s supposed to “change” the way he campaigns to make himself more suitable to voters.

How does that happen?

national news, political news, State news

A vote is not an ‘endorsement’ … Hmmm

004_Flores_jpg_800x1000_q100

Can we split this hair any more finely than this?

Put this another way: How can a vote for a candidate be seen anything other than endorsement?

U.S. Rep. Bill Flores is a Republican from Bryan, Texas, who says he’s going to vote for Donald J. Trump for president of the United States … but he isn’t going to “endorse” him.

While I scratch my head over that one, I’ll just ask out loud: Didn’t he just endorse the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee?

Flores is angry at Trump over the candidate’s suggestion that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel cannot preside over a case involving Trump University because of his Mexican heritage.

As the Texas Tribune reported: “I was incredibly angry to see Mr. Trump question a judge’s motives because of his ethnicity,” (Flores) added. “Like tens of millions of Americans, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton and desire to vote for a bold, conservative leader. Mr. Trump can be that leader, and we are ready to help him when he focuses on vision instead of inappropriate attacks.”

But … no endorsement, right?

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/08/texas-republican-congressman-refuses-endorse-donal/

The Republican Party political class is facing this difficulty across the nation. A lot of pols seem willing to acknowledge they’ll vote for Trump, but they won’t endorse him.

I guess that means they won’t stand on a campaign stage and hoist their presidential nominee’s hand in the air. They won’t introduce him to crowds with glowing praise.

Is it interesting to anyone — other than yours truly — that the Democrats don’t appear to have this problem with their presumed presidential nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton? Are we hearing Democratic politicians say things that Rep. Flores is saying, that they’ll vote for Clinton but won’t endorse her?

Yes, I’ve seen the polls that suggest a lot of Democrats who currently support Bernie Sanders will defect to Trump if Clinton gets the party nomination.

We’ll see, though, whether that defection rate holds up as the general election campaign moves forward.

Meantime, I’ll be watching other Republican political leaders try to explain how a commitment to vote for Donald Trump isn’t an endorsement of his presidential candidacy.

national news, political news

Might the impossible happen … again?

donald-trump

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham has issued an extraordinary statement.

The one-time Republican Party presidential candidate is urging Republican officeholders who have endorsed the party’s presumptive nominee, Donald J. Trump, to take back their endorsement.

Then what do you suppose happened? Fellow GOP Sen. Mark Kirk did exactly that. He said he cannot vote for someone who has made blatantly racist comments, which some have said Trump has made regarding a federal judge.

Trump said Gonzalo Curiel cannot judge a case involving Trump University fairly because he’s “a Mexican.” Well, Judge Curiel is an American. Sure, he is of Mexican heritage but the man was born in Indiana and has served as a federal prosecutor in California.

Trump seems to believe that because of Curiel’s heritage, he “hates” the candidate because of a proposal to build a wall from one end of the U.S. border with Mexico to the other.

The furor won’t die down.

Graham’s call for other Republicans to pull back their endorsement might not take hold across the nation. Then again, it might. I cannot predict how it would go.

However, we are starting to hear some chatter among political observers that Trump’s “presumed” nomination might not be so “presumptive” after all.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, who’s endorsed Trump, has labeled his anti-Curiel statement to be racist in nature. Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus has condemned the statement as well. Other Republican leaders have chimed in with similar statements of disgust and disdain.

So, here’s what a few of the talking heads are saying out loud: They are suggesting that Trump’s nomination could be taken away at the convention. How that might happen is anyone’s guess. It’s virtually unprecedented.

No one is suggesting it will happen, only that they wouldn’t be surprised if it does.

Therefore, one seemingly impossible scenario — the notion of someone so totally unfit to become president actually being nominated by a major political party — is being replaced by another even more impossible outcome.

The party could snatch the nomination away from the candidate.

It cannot happen? Well, who would have thought that Donald Trump — of all people — would be on the verge of being nominated to run for the presidency of the United States?

legal news, national news, political news

Trump winnows the judicial field

checks balance

This business of Donald J. Trump’s comments on a judge’s racial heritage is getting a little out of hand.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee remains in some seriously hot water over comments he made about a judge who’s presiding over litigation involving the defunct Trump University. U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel is an American-born jurist whose parents are Mexican immigrants.

Trump railed against the judge, saying he’s “a Mexican” who has been “very unfair to me” because of Trump’s proposal to “build a wall” across the southern border with Mexico.

Thus, Judge Curiel is disqualified, according to Trump.

Then he told CBS News’s John Dickerson that he might want Muslims disqualified from hearing any cases involving Trump because of his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States.

Now, get a load of this one.

A Trump spokeswoman said female judges might have to be disqualified because of Trump’s statements denigrating women.

Hmmm. Let’s play this out.

Who else might be unable to serve on the bench to litigate a case involving Trump?

A judge with a physical disability is one. Trump once mocked a disabled New York Times reporter.

A former prisoner of war. Trump once said that U.S. Sen. John McCain is a “war hero” only because he was shot down, captured and held captive for five-plus years. “I like people who weren’t captured, OK?” Trump said.

A judge who’s been married only one time. Trump is on his third marriage and has boasted openly about the affairs he’s had with women other than those to whom he was married.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-judge-attacks_us_57560111e4b0b60682deb6e3

Is it reasonable to assume that in Trump’s mind the only people who could judge a case involving him fairly and without bias are people who are just like him?

If so, then the pool of potential judges appears to have been narrowed considerably.

 

legal news, national news, political news

Former AG says Trump should challenge judge’s ‘fairness’

gon0-004

Donald J. Trump has gained an interesting ally in his dispute with a federal judge hearing a case involving a “university” that Trump founded some years ago.

The ally is former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who says the presumptive Republican presidential nominee is right to question whether U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel can judge his case fairly and impartially.

I’ll give Gonzales his due in one regard: the Texan argues his point with clarity and nuance, which is something that Trump is incapable of doing.

At issue, according to Gonzales, is Curiel’s association with a group called La Raza of San Diego, which Trump says is affiliated with the National Council of La Raza, a group formed to advocate for Latino issues. The Washington Post, though, has reported that NCLR and the San Diego outfit are unaffiliated.

That hasn’t stopped Trump, who has said that Curiel is “a Mexican,” which makes him unfit to hear the case. Curiel, of course, is an Indiana-born American citizen born to immigrants from Mexico. Trump’s alleged “reasoning” is that Curiel “hates” him because Trump wants to “build a wall, OK?” along our nation’s border with Mexico.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282222-former-bush-ag-trump-right-to-challenge-judges-fairness

Gonzales, who served as AG during the George W. Bush administration, has said that Curiel’s association even with the San Diego La Raza group should cause questions about his fairness in hearing the Trump University case. Curiel is presiding over three lawsuits brought by former students of the for-profit educational program who contend they were bilked out of money they spent to take courses.

It’s important to note what Gonzales wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post: “As someone whose own ancestors came to the United States from Mexico, I know ethnicity alone cannot pose a conflict of interests. But there may be other factors to consider in determining whether Trump’s concerns about getting an impartial trial are reasonable.”

Here’s Gonzales’ essay:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/04/alberto-r-gonzales-trump-has-a-right-to-question-whether-hes-getting-a-fair-trial/

You see, that is what Trump did when he challenged Judge Curiel’s ability to adjudicate this matter. He laid it solely on the man’s ethnicity. What’s more, he did so with utter disregard for the fact that the judge is no more “a Mexican” than Trump himself is “a Scotsman,” given that Trump’s mother emigrated to the United States from Scotland.

So, let’s have this discussion about whether a judge can preside with impartiality and fairness over a controversial case … but let’s leave the judge’s ethnicity out of it.