Originally Posted by wdmso
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, appointed Curiel in 2006 to the state superior court, where he spent six years before ascending to the federal court.
Schwarzenegger affirmed his support for Curiel on Monday tweeting: "Judge Curiel is an American hero who stood up to the Mexican cartels. I was proud to appoint him when I was Gov."
Schwarzenegger is a Progressive "Republican" not a conservative one. He is a poor choice to represent the opposite side of the aisle. And even Reagan appointed judges who turned out to be less than he hoped.
As far as standing up to the Mexican cartels, Mexico is also fighting the Mexican cartels. How is fighting the Mexican cartels proof that Curiel would not have a bias against Trump for his comments and his Wall promise? Posing the Mexican cartels as a representative of Mexico or of being Mexican is an insult to Mexico and Mexicans. Oh . . . wait, only Trump has offended Mexicans. If Curiel has publicly commented on Trumps supposedly anti-Mexican rants it might clarify what his bias would be or not be. If he hasn't, then only he knows. He might well agree with Trump and support the Wall. If Trump knew that, he might be perfectly happy to have Curiel as the presiding judge. Of course, if everybody knew that to be true, then the plaintiffs against Trump would have an argument for Curiel to recuse himself. Or, if that pro-Trump bias were known, Curiel would not have been appointed to the case in the first place. But if Trump doesn't know how Curiel truly feels about him, and Trump may feel that the judge was appointed specifically because of his Latino heritage in order to make Trumps defense more difficult, then bashing Trump for stating his fears and, furthermore, calling it "racist" when it isn't is not only way overboard, but it gives the bashing a huge taint of politics.
Trump Defender Representative Duncan Hunter
What I like to do is take these arguments out to there logical extremes. So let’s say that Chris Kyle, the American sniper, is still alive and he was on trial for something, and his judge was a Muslim-American of Iraqi descent. Here you have Chris Kyle, who’s killed a whole bunch of bad guys in Iraq. Would that be a fair trial for Chris Kyle? If you had that judge there? Probably not. And Chris Kyle could probably say, “this guy’s not gonna like me.”
Sounds reasonable, if such a scenario existed.
from the author.. Moreover, Sotomayor’s point rather plainly was that ethnic minorities who enter the legal profession—intelligent people with diversity of experience—will have a wider range of understanding than their more cloistered peers, and that will aide their judgment.
If that's Sotomayor's point, she's comparing apples to oranges. I mean, come on, "intelligent" ethnic minorities "with diversity of experience" versus "more cloistered peers"? Wouldn't a relevant comparison be" intelligent" ethnic minorities with "diversity of experience" versus "intelligent" peers with "diversity of experience"? Then there's "more cloistered ethnic minorities" versus "more cloistered peers." Or how about "more cloistered" ethnic minorities versus "intelligent" peers with "diversity of experience"? It's the same old pattern of progressive word play to suit situational ethics.
And having having a diversity of experience does not give you a wider range of understanding the law. The law is not dependent on the diversity of your experience. That diversity may even cloud your judgment depending on what that diversity entails. It may influence you to allow those experiences, favorable or unfavorable, to bend toward one over another. Justice is supposed to be "blind." A diversity of experience can enrich your life, but it may open your eyes in ways that abort justice.
It was not to say that white judges, by virtue of their whiteness, are incapable of standing in judgment of certain minorities impartially.
It's saying that they are less capable of doing so. Of course, if they're "more cloistered," and not "intelligent," they are probably incapable.
newrepublic.com/article/134110/annotated-guide-republicans-defenses-trumps-mexican-judge-comments
And, the New Republic is a far left publication, often Marxist in point of view. It's articles would be expected to support ethnic minorities over white capitalists.
this seem to following the same old pattern
|