Judge Curial. Funny, he looks white to me…
“Everybody says it, but I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump. He’s a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curial… We are in front of a very hostile judge. The judge was appointed by by Barack Obama – federal judge. [Boos]. Frankly he should recuse himself. He has given us ruling after ruling, negative, negative, negative. I have a top lawyer who said he has never seen anything like this before. So what happens is we get sued. We have a Magistrate named William Gallo who truly hates us..Watch how we win it as I have been treated unfairly. . . . So what happens is the judge, who happens to be, we believe Mexican, which is great. I think that is fine. You know what? I think the Mexicans are going to end up loving Donald Trump when I give all these jobs. I think they are going to love it. I think they are going to love me. . .I think Judge Curiel should be ashamed of himself. I think it is a disgrace he is doing this… It is a disgrace. It is a rigged system…They ought to look into Judge Curiel because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace. “
This is what Donald Trump said about Mexican-American judge Gonzalo Curial, who is currently presiding over the civil law suit involving now-defunct Trump University. That is all of it, with the rest being general Trump-speak.
The initial reaction in the news media and from the anti-Trump legal commentators (that is, essentially all legal commentators except the ones who have to eat alone at their law school dining rooms) was that Trump’s entire rant that contained the sentiments above were a threat to the rule of law and judicial independence. As I explained here, that was both hyperbole and a double standard.
It also, as I expected, was far too technical a complaint for the average voter to understand or get upset about, even if it had been valid and fair, which it wasn’t. So the anti-Trump forces, which are mighty and legion, decide to shift gears, and rather than attack the statement as a threat to the Constitution, condemn it as “racist.” It was so racist that Buzzfeed decided that it could get brownie points by pulling out of an ad deal it had made with the Republican Party by professing revulsion at the party’s presumptive nominee’s “racism.”
The news media has now decided that it is just a fact that Trump’s comments about the judge were “racist.” That’s how the topic is being discussed. Nobody looks at the statement that sparked this nonsense: Trump said something racist, and that’s all there is to it.
Except that he didn’t.
I can’t keep track of all of the subsequent statements Trump has made or will make to defend himself. Since he talks like a stream of consciousness novel written by a Red Bull-guzzling cab driver, he may have said or will say something that is more inflammatory than the statement being attacked; remember, the man literally doesn’t know what is going to come out of his mouth until he hears it. For now, I’m going to stick to the statement that started this.
1. He said that Judge Curiel “was a hater.”
2. He implied that he was biased against Trump, and that this was a “disgrace.”
3. He said, in what I am certain was one of those examples where Trump’s tongue got the jump on his brain, that “we believe” the judge was “Mexican.”
4. He said that the system “was rigged,”that Judge Curiel should recuse himself, and that Curiel should be ashamed.
That’s it!
None of that constitutes a “racist” statement. It does not even constitute a bigoted statement, and it is in no way the magnitude of offense the Democrats, media and Trump opponents are claiming, indeed, stating it to be.
Before I list the ethics touch-points in this disturbing event (the event being a news media lynch mob devoid of proportion or fairness controlling the discussion and misrepresenting a Presidential candidate), let me make this clear, as if I hadn’t already in dozens of Ethics Alarms posts:
It is every citizen’s ethical duty to make sure Donald Trump is not elected President. That means that it is the duty of the Republican Party not to nominate him, no matter what that entails, and the duty of the Democratic Party to nominate someone who won’t give him a realistic chance to win ( like, say, its two current contenders for the ticket.) It is not, however, the duty of journalists to rig the election by misleading the public. It is their duty not to. Their duty is to record, communicate, and objectively analyze the facts. A news media that intentionally and habitually warps the truth in order to accomplish its own political agenda is at least as much of a threat to our democracy as Donald Trump is.
The news media is starting frighteningly quickly on a campaign to undermine Trump by slanting their reporting against him and trying to stampede the public. This is a particularly outrageous example. At this point, the news media just refers to “racially tinged comments” and “racist sentiments’ without bothering to reprint what the alleged racist statements were. You know, I think it would be wonderful if Donald Trump really did have an unequivocal racist meltdown in a public forum, like Seinfeld’s Michael Richards (“Kramer”) did in a concert, screaming “Nigger!” over and over again. Then The GOP would have to reject Trump (jeez, I hope!), which is what they should have done from the start, and should do now, not because of racism but because the man is completely unfit to be President. Trump has not done that, however, nor will he (I doubt that he is a racist). If he is a racist, his comments about the judge were not evidence of it, and it is wrong, wrong, wrong for his critics and the news media to falsely claim otherwise.
It is also wrong for so many to sit back and let them get away with it, just because the victim is Trump.
Just so we agree on terms, here is a typical definition of racism:
RACISM ˈ(rāˌsizəm)
1. the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
2. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.
Ethics Observations
- Do Trump’s comments have anything to do with race, as opposed to ethnicity?
No.
- Does anything in his statement suggest that Judge Curial possesses “characteristics or abilities” specific to being “Mexican” that render him inferior to a non-Mexican judge? No. In fact, while noting that Curial hates him, Trump also says that the magistrate, Judge William Gallo, also hates him. Gallo is of Italian descent and as white as, well, Judge Curial. Here he is:
Now, how can it be “racist” for Trump to say that Curial, a Mexican-American, is biased against him, when he also says that Judge Gallo, who is not Mexican-American and as white as Trump, is also biased against him? Isn’t it clear as day that Trump, like many litigants, believe that “the system” is out to get him and the judges, whatever their ethnicity, are biased against him because of their rulings? It is clear….except that the news media wants to tag Trump as a racist as early as possible. Americans don’t like racists. Racism is an effective slur, and anyone who defends a racist is likely to be called a racist too.
- Trump thinks it’s relevant that Curial is Hispanic (Mexican, Hispanic, Hispanic-American—nuances of language mean nothing to Trump, so interpreting his use of a word as if he considered it, weighing the best and most tasteful way to state his meaning, is willfully dishonest. It is especially dishonest coming from those who say “immigrant” to mean “Illegal immigrant,” which is similarly sloppy terminology) because he assumes that most Americans of Hispanic descent take offense at his remarks about illegal immigrants and his fanciful promise to “build a wall.” This is not racism, nor ethnic bias: there are excellent reasons for Trump to believe that most Hispanic-Americans don’t like him, even hate him.
One poll showed 79% of Hispanics saying they had a “very unfavorable” view of Trump, with 78% saying that Trump’s views on immigration made them less likely to vote for a Republican candidate in the general election. So Trump naturally reasons that an Hispanic-American has a special reason to “hate” him. That’s unfair to the judge: one of the qualifications of a judge is to be able to put petty biases aside. Trump is really saying that Curial is a bad judge, not because he is Hispanic, but because he allows his heritage to influence his judgment. That’s unfair. It is not racism, however.
- Trump believes all people will have antipathy toward a politician who has said negative things about their country of origin. Most American agree with Trump, because most Americans do think that way themselves. But Trump isn’t saying that only Hispanics think this way, and we cannot presume he means that just because a Hispanic judge happens to be his target.
In this case, the judge happens to be a Hispanic, but if the judge was Irish, and Trump had said that he believed that we had too many Irish immigrants in this country, does anyone doubt for a second that he would have suggested that the Irish judge was biased against him? Would that have been “racism” too?
- Trump didn’t just rest his claim of bias on the fact that Curial sympathizes with his anti-Trump Hispanic-American community. He noted that he is an Obama appointee, by which Trump also means to suggest that he is biased, for political reasons, and reasons of loyalty. So Trump is arguing that a judge who belongs to a group that polls show dislike him, and who was appointed by a President whom Trump attacks regularly ( an appointee is probably loyal to the man who appointed him, right?) is presumptively biased against Trump and his interests, and should recuses himself. If he doesn’t, then the system is fixed.
Is this low-level bitching from a litigant who doesn’t like how a case against him is going? Yes. Is it unseemly for a Presidential candidate to make such a statement? Yes. Does it display stunning ignorance of how judges do their jobs? Yes…but remember, this is exactly how Trump reasons himself, and he is just projecting his own thought processes onto a stranger. Is this racist? How? How is it racist? How could it be racist? It is not racist.
- It is fascinating to read around the web how critics of Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky, who delivered the jaw-dropping sentence of six months in jail for a Stanford swimmer convicted of rape, are suggesting that the fact that Persky is a Stanford alumnus himself biased him in favor of Brock Turner. Many of these are the same people calling Donald Trump a racist because he suggested that ethnic identification might create a bias.
Tell me, in terms of factors that might create bias for or against a defendant, how can a judge’s presumed identification with an institution be considered a reasonable cause for suspicion, and another judge’s presumed identification with an ethnic group be considered motivated by racial animus?
It can be if the idea is to discredit someone as a racist and the truth is irrelevant, because the ends justify the means.
Ethics Alarms 
Trump may not be a racist. But he does often behave like a spoiled brat who is used to getting his own way and is very unhappy when he doesn’t.
What I fear is that this is all a ploy.
Trump gets the nomination and gets even more obnoxious than before (did not know that was possible).
Then, once Hillary secures the nomination, he gets even more obnoxious (I now have faith he can do so).
He tanks his own campaign so Hillary can be elected, all the while fighting any Republicans who call for him to step down because they are not treating him “fairly.”
(He did not want to become President anyway; not enough money in it. But, with Hillary safely in the White House, the payback begins. And, he probably won’t even have to donate to the Clinton Foundation. But, he and Clinton both know that money talks in politics; that makes them perfect for each other.)
Maybe I am a little too paranoid.
-Jut
Not sure why Curiel is repeatedly referred to here as “Mexican-American.” Yes, his parents emigrated to the U.S. but one would think he’d qualify as just plain American.
Trump? Rich? It all depends on the definition. Won’t release taxes although his reason for not doing so is bunk. Claims his name alone is worth 4 billion. Perhaps, but only if he continues to manufacture his hats and ties in China (who are taking jobs away from the U.S., in case you weren’t listening to him).
All hyphenated Americans qualify as just American, including African-Americans. Would that they all wanted to.
I’m a Greek-American. You know: an American.
And he may not be an alligator, but he sure is rich.
I don’t understand your proposed dichotomy.
Which dichotomy? I do not understand your comment.
-Jut
Did Trump’s Build a Wall rhetoric bias this judge? Maybe.
Does it matter even a little bit if it did? No.
The judicial system would utterly break if a litigant could get a new judge by doing something to bias his sitting judge. Imagine: You have someone charged with theft. This guy doesn’t like his judge so he goes out and burglarises his judge’s house, and is caught. Will the burglary bias the judge? Oh you better believe it! But you don’t get to shop for judges by being a douche, what this amounts to is you shitting the bed and being forced to lie in it.
In fact, the court is so clear on its record on this issue that the motion to recuse this judge would probably be met with discipline to whatever lawyer stupid enough to try it. Which could be why, despite Trump’s incessant, stupid whining, no actual motion has been filed.
What’s dumber than all of this? Trump undoubtedly knows it: his lawyers have HAD to tell him what’s going on. So what’s he doing? Taking a bath(*). Did his build a wall rhetoric bias the judge? Who cares? Screaming on national TV that your judge is biased and should be ashamed sure as HELL is biasing him, and it still won’t be grounds for recusal.
And KNOWING that he’s taking a bath means he either: 1) Thinks he’ll win, despite fucking with his judge, and wants to show how great he is: He wins impossible cases! Just think what he’ll do to China! Or 2) Realises he’s going to lose, and is stocking up on nails and hammers so he can crucify himself.
(*) Accountant slang: “Taking a Bath”: If your financials are going to be shit, you take a bath, and cram all the expenses you can into the shitty period, so the one after it looks awesome by comparison.
The problem with your analogy is that if you had a trial in front of a judge, and we’re arrested for burglarizing his or her home, you would certainly get a new judge.
This is a storied, tried and tested legal principle: You don’t get to shop for judges by biasing your sitting judge, regardless of what you do to bias him. I’m entirely certain you’re factually wrong. Citation please.
This is inaccurate. If I burglarize a Judge’s home, assault his son, run over his dog, that Judge will recuse himself so fast it will make your head spin. Do you really think a Judge can preside over your burglary trial if you were arrested for burglarizing his home? If he doesn’t automatically recuse (which he or she would), you can waltz into trial knowing that conviction is getting thrown out.
http://www.wtxl.com/news/florida_news/south-florida-judge-attacked-during-hearing/article_0207e61e-b5d3-11e4-a37b-1f29dcdd1b45.html
https://popehat.com/2016/06/06/lawsplainer-when-must-federal-judges-recuse-themselves-anyway/
“So Trump’s argument that a “Mexican” can’t hear is case is bogus?
Beyond the shadow of a doubt based on a century of law. Many courts have considered and rejected the argument that a judge of a particular ethnicity, gender, or religion is inherently biased because of the nature of the case. In fact, the argument has been so repeatedly and thoroughly rejected that it’s sanctionable to make it.”
“But can’t judge Curiel’s impartiality be reasonably questioned now that Trump has repeatedly attacked him?
No. It’s extremely well established — as well-established as anything in federal law — that you can’t judge-shop by being a douche. A party’s insults, criticisms, and even threats are not a valid basis for recusal. Otherwise you could judge-shop by attacking judges until you found one you liked.”
“Even if one argues that Judge Curiel’s membership in a Latino attorney organization might show bias, Trump’s lawyers would have a problem: they’d be arguing that the alleged bias didn’t arise until long after Judge Curiel started hearing the case. Trump’s argument, to the extent it can be nailed down, is that Trump wants to build a wall and Judge Curiel is a member of a Latino organization and therefore Judge Curiel is biased. But Trump didn’t start talking about building a wall until Judge Curiel had already been hearing the case for years. In general, a party can’t manufacture bias through new conduct after the judge has been assigned. That stops parties from judge-shopping. So, for instance, if I don’t like how my case is going before a Turkish-American federal judge who is a member of a Turkish-American group, I can’t force a judge-switch by becoming a loud advocate for official recognition of the Armenian Genocide.”
I apparently channelled Ken White earlier.
Thanks.
You and Ken are right on the law, but it is something of a necessary legal fiction embedded in the interests of the ideals of a diverse society. For example, in a nation where a former Secretary of State says that there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t support each other, a male spouse abuser’s fear that a female judge will be harsher than a male one is hardly a crazy fantasy.
Granted, my point was more to the futility of Trump’s argument: It’s a dumb strategy to try. He might even be right, but regardless, by saying so, especially in the way he is, can only make his legal troubles worse. This is a level of cynicism that’s almost signature significance: He’ll sewer a legal case in favour of PR.
You and Ken are right on the law, but it is something of a necessary legal fiction embedded in the interests of the ideals of a diverse society. For example, in a nation where a former Secretary of State says that there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t support each other, a male spouse abuser’s fear that a female judge will be harsher than a male one is hardly a crazy fantasy.
So would a female abuse victim fears that a male judge would go lighter on her abuser because he also identifies as male be a well-placed fear as well?
If respected male figures said “there’s a special place in hell for men who don’t support each other”…and everybody cheered.
Some quotes from a USA Today piece currently sitting atop Google News…
As primary season ended Tuesday, presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump faced the prospect of a revolt by GOP lawmakers who say his harsh, racially charged rhetoric will cost them elections up and down the ballot.
“I do not feel that one’s heritage makes them incapable of being impartial,” Trump said, “but, based on the rulings that I have received in the Trump University civil case, I feel justified in questioning whether I am receiving a fair trial.”
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said Trump’s comments about Curiel’s heritage amount to “textbook” racism, though he said he would continue to support the businessman over Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Other Republicans said they cannot back Trump and even suggested the possibility of a challenge at next month’s convention.
The billionaire’s attacks on Curiel have been likened to Joe McCarthy-like Communist witch hunts, and have prompted pressure on Republican leaders to pull their support of the New York businessman.
“Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment,” Ryan told reporters Tuesday. “If you say something that’s wrong, I think the mature and responsible thing is to acknowledge it.”
Trump, who also called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States, has also questioned whether Muslim judges could be fair.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/07/donald-trump-paul-ryan-mitch-mcconnell/85559392/
From Cosmopolitan…
The Word Republicans Refuse to Use When Describing Donald Trump
Their candidate is racist, but it’s awkward for them to say that.
Donald Trump is a racist.
I know, the R-word is a thing you’re not supposed to say, at least not about people who are currently alive and running for political office. The only real racists, it seems, are Klan members and self-identified white supremacists (many of whom back Donald Trump). This is why Trump can say that an American-born Hispanic judge isn’t suited for his job because of his Mexican heritage, and while Trump’s Republican Party mates criticize the comments, they refuse to flat-out say, “This guy is running a racist campaign, and his comments are racist.”
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a59496/donald-trump-racist/
Just stop it. Trump didn’t say, or come close to say,”an American-born Hispanic judge isn’t suited for his job because of his Mexican heritage.” I just wrote what he said, and there is no favor way to read it like that. You know better.
And the guy is white. Trump undoubtedly thinks of him as white. This is the silliest stretch of “racist” yet. Just stop it.
Uh, Jack, you misconstrue my intentions. I dropped this stuff here in support of your thesis. Now you made me cry!
I was saying “Stop it” to the quoted author!
Oh. I’ll dry my tears now.
Here’s one from my inbox… The New Yorker blurb…
http://links.newyorker.mkt4334.com/ctt?kn=56&ms=OTAyNTIwNgS2&r=MTE3NjA0NTk5MDkyS0&b=0&j=OTQwNjc0ODE0S0&mt=1&rt=0
The G.O.P.’s Shock and Support for Trump
Following Trump’s comments about Judge Curiel, leading Republicans are portraying his racism as an oddity that has nothing to do with his candidacy.
BY AMY DAVIDSON
Just more of what I was talking about. Go ahead, explain how is what Trump said “racially charged” or even harsh?
I don’t think I’ve requested this before, but I’d really appreciate it if the link to this article was widely and appropriately circulated on social media, blogs, letters to websites and elsewhere, to anyone and any forum that buys this “racism” smear.
As I investigated this, I became progressively more outraged. This is mass libel and slander, engineered by journalists, and it is frightening. All over Facebook, people are writing that “the ugly racism behind Donald Trump’s mask” has finally been revealed..because they have been told to think that. I wrote one Democrat friend and said that there was no racism here, and he wrote—“If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck”—wow, that’s some crazy-looking duck! Trump, trying to show bias, notes that a judge whiter than I am (and a LOT whiter than George Zimmerman, a point I excised from the post) is Mexican-American (he said “Mexican”—So what?) and presumably doesn’t like “the Wall,” hence Trump—and that makes Trump a racist? Why isn’t everyone mocking that?
Breathe, Jack. Take a drink. I’m on your side.
That means a lot to me.
This is your (very good) excuse to join Medium.com. Very well educated populace there. You can set it up so that your Ethics Alarms post are published there almost simultaneously.
I waited all of ten minutes and you didn’t join, so I did what I could do. Send me something good. https://medium.com/@FarkleUp/donald-trump-is-a-big-fat-racist-pig-57ac90f60f78#.bmgmo5ag0
This is “binders full of Women” circa 2016. Anything a Republican nominee can say that can be turned into an “ism” will be slander-bait for the media.
The progressive herd on Facebook is throwing this around as a particularly hypocritical appeal to authority, since none of them would usually agree with Ryan if he said the sky was blue.
Meanwhile, what an idiotic comment by Ryan! Could he possibly not have read what Trump said, and just what people say Trump said, after reading what someone else said he said it?
Show, me, Mr. Speaker, or anyone, where Trump said the judge cannot do his job because of his race! He didn’t say that or imply that, and the JUDGE IS AS WHITE AS WHITE CAN BE!
How can it be a “textbook” racist comment when it is made about one white guy about another white guy? Textbook? TEXTBOOK?
What textbook would that be, Paul? Does Ryan have a Bizarro World library card???
I feel like I’m losing my mind.
Jack,
Do you really believe that most Americans view Hispanics as “white?” Do you believe most Hispanics see themselves as “white?”
As someone who grew up white in a majority Hispanic community, and who teaches in that community now, every child growing up then made and every child I teach now makes a firm distinction between “white” and “Hispanic.”
This may not be reflected on a census form, but it’s the reality on the ground. And since race is entirely socially constructed, the line between “race” and “ethnicity” here seems rather blurred.
Most Americans believe that Hispanics are white, black, and in between. There is no “brown” race. Hispanic is ethnicity and culture. That judge is white, and no American would say he isn’t. You’re stretching.
That judge is white, and no American would say he isn’t. You’re stretching.
I’m pretty sure the judge does not consider himself white. He belongs to a national black fraternity (Kappa Alpha Psi), where he is still an active member, and had a rather magnificent Afro in the 70s. His fraternity brothers say he was very proud and talked about his “brown” heritage. We don’t know for sure without directly asking him, of course, but that is a good indicator.
No he’s not stretching. I am only one of two white people in my neighborhood. Its mostly Hispanic. They see themselves as Hispanic and not white or Anglo or what ever you want to call it.
Yes he is. This is group identification. It’s not like gender, Bill—we went through that with Rachel Dolezal. Just because she says she’s black doesn’t make her black, and just because Hispanics find it advantageous to call themselves a race doesn’t mean they are one.
Yes he is. This is group identification. It’s not like gender, Bill—we went through that with Rachel Dolezal. Just because she says she’s black doesn’t make her black, and just because Hispanics find it advantageous to call themselves a race doesn’t mean they are one.
As I noted downthread, “Hispanic/Latinx” will probably be under a racial category, rather than an ethnic one, for the next census.
Race, is a social and cultural convenience in the United States, rather than a strictly biological one. Census analysts noted that Hispanics do not check black, Asian, Native American, or white under the race category, but “other”, indicating that they do not see themselves as white racially.
If you asked most Americans, showing him a picture and his name, what race the judge was, most would probably say, “Hispanic.” I think most people really do think of Hispanic as its own racial category in the United States.
When I lived in eastern Europe for a time, I had people earnestly explain to me how the Romani (“gypsies” as we would call it here) were an inferior race, not fit to be with the better people. When I informed them that over in the U.S. both they and the speaker would be considered white, and of the same race, they shouted me down. “How could that be, when they were obviously of separate races? Biologically not even close to the same!” I had a close friend, drunk, confide in a hushed whisper that she was 1/4 Romani, but she hoped I wouldn’t treat her any differently because I knew this. I held back a laugh, and assured her that this would not change how I treated her in any way. Such is both the power, and the fiction, of race.
It’s not, though. People believe a lot of false things, especially when the news media and ideological activists have been going out of their way to make them believe them. I am not so gullible. I insist on real definitions, integrity, honesty and fairness. I also try to help others be more discerning and not to fall for such self-evident crap.
It’s not, though. People believe a lot of false things, especially when the news media and ideological activists have been going out of their way to make them believe them. I am not so gullible. I insist on real definitions, integrity, honesty and fairness. I also try to help others be more discerning and not to fall for such self-evident crap.
Ok, so define the races, and how Hispanics belong under the “white” category of racial classification. Should be easy enough, right?
Here’s the first line in Wikipedia’s definition of “race”:
Race, as a social construct, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics.
By that definition, Mexicans are not a race, and the Judge is white.
From the Biology encyclopedia:
Biology of Race
The biological definition of race is a geographically isolated breeding population that shares certain characteristics in higher frequencies than other populations of that species, but has not become reproductively isolated from other populations of the same species. (A population is a group of organisms that inhabit the same region and interbreed.) Human racial groups compose a number of breeding units that in the past remained geographically and perhaps temporally isolated, yet could interbreed and produce viable offspring within the species Homo sapiens sapiens. Paleoanthropological evidence suggests that these units have been interbreeding between populations for at least the last two hundred thousand years or longer in what may once have been considered racial groups.
More recently, molecular techniques have developed to examine genetic differences between individuals and populations, including karyotypes providing chromosomal number and patterns, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) hybridization, protein sequences, and nuclear and mitochondrial base sequences from ancient and modern DNA. From all this evidence, it is clear that populational, but not racial, differences do exist within the human species. Race should not be equated with ethnicity, which has a sociological meaning. Ethnicity is a self-described category that has three components—ancestry, language, and culture—that all have affinities to certain ancestral groups.
Well, there you go throwing Wikipedia at us. Sheesh!
jvb
From all this evidence, it is clear that populational, but not racial, differences do exist within the human species. Race should not be equated with ethnicity, which has a sociological meaning. Ethnicity is a self-described category that has three components—ancestry, language, and culture—that all have affinities to certain ancestral groups.
The very definition you cited takes pains to explain that race is a social construct, not a biological one. It also goes further to talk about how ethnicity is also a social construct. It talks about population sub-groupings, which are distinct from race.
So again, how is the judge white?
Huh? Are we reading the same quote? It distinguishes race (appearance, physical characteristics) from ethnicity.
The judge is white, and thus he’s white.
Huh? Are we reading the same quote? It distinguishes race (appearance, physical characteristics) from ethnicity.
The judge is white, and thus he’s white.
Race has never functioned that way in the United States. See Plessy (of Plessy v. Ferguson fame) and take a gander at his picture if you don’t believe me.
Race is just as quirky in other countries, such as Latin America. In Brazil, two whole siblings can be considered of different races, solely based on wealth and hair texture. Phenotype does not equal genotype. It is a matter of social convenience, as I’ve stated before, not biological.
The judge probably does not consider himself white. He does not look white (to me). Most people would say he is of the “Hispanic” race, which indeed is a racial option on the next Census. Most Hispanics, currently lacking that option (to the tune of 95%), check “other” when asked to identify their race.
Changing goalposts. I know about the one drop rules. There was no dispute that the black litigant in Plessy was legally black and regarded himself as black, even though he was only 1/8th black. Today he would be regarded as white if he wanted to be, and even then, he would not have been treated as black if he didn’t make a point of it. He intentionally violated the law involved because his appearance pointed up the absurdity of treating him differently…just as the judge’s appearance points up the absurdity of saying Trump’s comments about him were based on race.
The very existence of the one-drop rule points to the absurdity of race as a biological reality in America. Obama is both half black and white. he would not be able to self-identify as white even if he wanted to. He would never be accepted as such. An aborigine would probably treated as black here, despite the fact that they are more closely related genetically to Asians. Phenotype is not the same as genotype. Race is a social convention, nothing more, and the definition changes from country to country, which is one of the first clues that it is a social construction, not a biological reality.
The one drop Rule was law, and a cultural tradition, and says no more about the nature of race than the fact that women weren’t allowed to vote says anything about the nature of gender. Yes, black ancestry was treated by racists like it was some kind of pollutant. And people believed stump water cured warts.
I’m at a friends home and he was just asking what I thought the intellectual result would be if deery and Alizia got together and made babies? Now that’s some free thinking.
Sorry; that what happens when you get a couple of Army buddies together tipping back a cold one and talking some shit. 😉
There are so many problems with that pairing — first and foremost being that Alizia is ones and zeroes……
Beth said, “…Alizia is ones and zeroes……”
Binary code; that’s pretty funny especially to me suffering from a terrible case of jetlag, it’s 3:30 am here and I’m WIDE awake. It’s gonna be a LONG day. Arrgh!
Maybe these showers will dissipate before sunrise; I think I’ll grab a thermos of coffee and go find a nice place to watch the sun come up.
All races are a social construct, there is no such thing as the different races, we as human beings divide ourselves up into groups based on color of skin, the shape of our eyes , the language we speak and where we are from.
And you as someone of Greek heritage should know better then anyone that people do this. Hell the next time your around some of your Greek relatives ask them if they know that Greeks and Turks are the same race.
Hispanics are not seen as “white” by racists. And they themselves don’t see themselves as white. You can argue to your blue ion the face about this Jack but you would still be wrong.
As to Trump being a racist, I don’t know if he is or not. I think hes more likely an asshole.
As to his statement being racist? Maybe not but he sure knows how to say all the thing’s that will get racist riled up.
1.He points out the judge isn’t treating him fairly.
2. Point out that he is Mexican.
3. Says that he has no problem with Mexicans.
4. Finishes up with that the guy is incompetent.
He doesn’t come right out and say
” That Mexican is persecuting me because he is a Mexican and doesn’t like my stance on immigration”
but if you grew up in the south you see that he is just dancing around saying it indirectly.
And if you listen to Trump more than twice, you know that he’s just a sloppy speaker. That was an accurate summary of what he said.
And “That Mexican is persecuting me because he is a Mexican and doesn’t like my stance on immigration” isn’t a racist statement either, or a bigoted one. It’s an opinion with some reasonable basis in reality.
“All races are a social construct, there is no such thing as the different races, we as human beings divide ourselves up into groups based on color of skin, the shape of our eyes , the language we speak and where we are from.”
It’s… dangerous… to generalise like that. Sickle cell anaemia doesn’t care about social constructs, but it’s still a predominantly black affliction. There are biological differences between people of different heritage, they just might not fall into groups as cleanly as we label them.
Sickle cell can be found in western and central African populations, as well as Indian and Arab populations. Some of whom would be considered racially black, white, and Asian, respectively. It is pretty unknown among eastern African and southern African populations, who would also be classified racially as black. We know it as the “black disease” in the US because most of the black population here was taken from western Africa. And the incidence here is much lower than in Africa, also due to the high admixture of the black population with the European and Native American population.
I’ve said before, in this very thread, that sub-populations can be identified genetically, if you want to slice them and dice them, in many different ways. The problem is that it does not grid very neatly onto racial categories as we know them and group them in the United States.
Jack — most Americans confuse race and national origin. Being prejudiced against either falls under the “bigot” umbrella. Why else would Trump even mention it? He knew what he was doing. It’s all part of his “Make America [White] Again” propaganda — which I don’t think he personally believes, but he’s trying to tap into the fear that many Americans have that the demographics of our country are changing too quickly.
Why would he do it? He is an ignoramous, and misunderstands what contitutes inherent bias for a judge. This wasn’t political in any way—it’s free association, not racism.
And the fact that most Americans have been beaten down into calling everything racist from a white cop shooting a behemoth who’s charging him to objecting to thousands of non-citizens illegally entering the country doesn’t mean it is fair or responsible to call what isn’t racism racism, now does it?
Moreover, what Trump said isn’t bigotry either! Activists, women, blacks, Hispanics, evangelicals, Republicans, young people—over and over, we are told that each group “thinks this” and “thinks that,” and yet when a Trump says, “Well, gee, Hispanics “think I stink on ice”, and my judge is Hispanic, so I guess he thinks I stink on ice!” that’s bigotry? That’s straight-line, unsophisticated reasoning, and that’s all it is. I’m disgusted with this. It’s progressive mind and word games, it’s dishonest, unfair and sinister,and I’m calling foul.
Moreover, what Trump said isn’t bigotry either! Activists, women, blacks, Hispanics, evangelicals, Republicans, young people—over and over, we are told that each group “thinks this” and “thinks that,” and yet when a Trump says, “Well, gee, Hispanics “think I stink on ice”, and my judge is Hispanic, so I guess he thinks I stink on ice!” that’s bigotry? That’s straight-line, unsophisticated reasoning, and that’s all it is.
Well it is both bigotry, and “straight-line, unsophisticated reasoning”, as most bigotry turns out to be. I don’t see the conflict.
Explain how you get to bigotry there. A group and its representatives say “we all think this.” A litigant says, “Wait—my judge belongs to that group–he must think that too!” That’s basic logic. Where is the bigotry? (Hint: the fact that the group is an ethnic one doesn’t change the answer.)
Where is the quote where someone says “we all think this”? Certainly you can say, “many”, “most”, or even just “Hispanics think…” relying on the reader with any sense to fill in an implied “most”, but “all”? I think you are stretching. Trump does get some Hispanic voters after all. Not a lot, but some, so it is an easily falsifiable statement.
But the Trump statement is bigotry because it implies that the only people who can be neutral to Trump would be a white person. That white people have no biases, (or are “colorless”) when it comes to matters of race and ethnicity, and could not, in turn, be biased towards their own race/ethnicity.
Exactly.
“But the Trump statement is bigotry because it implies that the only people who can be neutral to Trump would be a white person.”
There you go again, and signature significance. The judge is WHITE!!!! Look at him! Trump said nothing about color whatsoever!
WAR IS PEACE.
You have no shame.
Does he consider himself white? As I indicated upthread, likely not.
Rachel Dolezal. He’s white. So is she.
Rachel Dolezal. He’s white. So is she.
Well, what is white?
Culturally, he is Hispanic, and has always identified as such.
Ethnic biological background? I have no idea, probably mestizo, which would be Native American/Asian and white. That Afro picture indicates otherwise though. Most whites and Asians can’t grow a good Afro, so probably a healthy mix of African genes as well. So what would make him white as opposed to any other part of his ancestry?
Dolezal was of 100% European ancestry, and identified as white until well past her college years and into full adulthood. She doesn’t belong in this conversation except as a red herring.
Jack, you are unique among most Americans. The vast majority of them would not call someone of Mexican ancestry “white” for two reasons. First, on average, their skin tends to be more tan than white Americans of European ancestry. Second, “Mexican” can be a loaded term in today’s immigration and illegal immigration debates. Trump used the word Mexican (and expounded on it in his later CNN interview) deliberately in order to appeal to these bigots. Just about everyone sees that but you.
For what it is worth, my husband — a/k/a the whitest man on the planet — is 50% Mexican. He has never identified as such despite his language skills and large family (all of whom are darker than him) because he took after his German heritage. He thought it would be unfair to claim special privileges in hiring, school admittance, etc. because he never faced discrimination because of his background.
First four entries among the 0ver 2,000,000 on Google in response to “Hispanics believe”:
Hispanic Views on the Spirit World and Alternative Religious …
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/05/07/chapter-8-the-spirit-world/
May 7, 2014 – For instance, a majority of Latinos say they believe people can be possessed by spirits, and about three-in-ten say they have made offerings to …
Latinos in the U.S. have a strong belief in the spirit world | Pew …
http://www.pewresearch.org/…/latinos-in-the-u-s-have-a-strong-belief-i...
Pew Research Center
May 15, 2014 – More than half (57%) of Latinos in the U.S. said that people can be … While we do not have data on how many Americans overall believe in the …
Poll: Strong Majority—Including 63% of Hispanics—Believe U.S. …
http://www.breitbart.com/…/poll-strong-majority-including-63-of-h...
Breitbart News Network
Dec 2, 2015 – A strong majority of Americans—including 63% of Hispanics—do not think America should accept Muslim Syrian refugees.
Hispanics and Asians Still Believe in the American Dream – The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/03/…believe…/472776/
The Atlantic
Mar 8, 2016 – Hispanics and Asians, more than might be expected, tend to trust that they have a fair shot at getting ahead.
Jack,
Again, there is a difference between making a generalization about a specific ethnic group or race, and applying that generalization to an individual. “Blacks tend to be good at basketball” is not racist. If I go up to a random black person and say “You must be really good at basketball!” I am being racist.
A lot of people would say that Blacks tend to be good at basketball” (or “White Men Can’t Jump”) is racist.
If you are talking about Trump, what he said was “A judge of Mexican extraction is likely to be biased against a litigant who has said things that offend a lot of Mexicans.” In addition to not being about race, it’s also not making a generalization. If he said, as Paul Ryan said, “Nobody who is of Mexican extraction is qualified to be a judge,” THAT would be a bigoted and prejudiced (but not racist) position.
How do I share or post this to other sites? Do I cut and paste to other pages?
The near-hysteria over Trump’s blathering is simply awe-inspiring. Trump’s comments, as posted here, are consistent with his tried and true format – when something doesn’t go his way, it is because the system is flawed, biased, and he was treated unfairly.
No, he wasn’t. The judge denied a motion because there are sufficient fact issues to take the case to trial. Posturing like this is simply Trump’s way of handling political opposition. He did it to David French and Bill Kristol when they were mulling over a third or fourth party run for the White House. He called Kristol a loser, whose paper is failing. He should have shut up about it and let the wind out of the sail. But, Trump being Trump, he can’t do that because he can’t control himself.
Trump’s comments in the Jake Tapper interview/takedown were more obnoxious. He looked positively unhinged and deranged” “I’m going to build a wall”.
The whole point of this kerfuffle misdirect attention away from Clinton. She is equally, if not more, unqualified to sit in the Oval Office. When will the mainstream media start asking hard questions about the email scandal? About willful and intentional destruction of government documents? The Clinton Foundation’s fund raising from foreign government’s with direct stake in US foreign policy while she was Secretary of State? The Cattle-Futures Miracle? Why the ‘Bimbo Eruptions’ was not a ‘War on Women’? Her firing for being a liar in connection with Watergate and the subsequent ethics rebuke by by her supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman? Those seem more substantive than the dumb things Trump says on an almost hourly basis.
As an aside, I wonder when the mainstream media will start asking these kinds of direct questions, with unrelenting followups to Clinton and/or Sanders. Can you imagine Tapper asking Sanders,
Tapper: “Senator, you are a committed social democrat. Where has socialism been successful and why?”
When Sanders extols Norway’s virtues, Tapper can ask,
“Well, Norway is a small, homogeneous, mostly white nation with very little in the way of military or defense spending. Yet, it has a ‘UGE’ tax structure. How and where would that work in the US, a land of approximately 400 million people from just about every country and culture on the planet, with varying degrees of education, economic power, and political structure?”
Then, Sanders can rail against the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent owning 99 percent of the wealth in the country. As a follow up, Tapper would ask about another socialist paradise closer to home, that being Venezuela. He can ask the intrepid Independent from Vermont why Venezuela is on the brink of complete and total social, political, and economic collapse:
“Why, then Senator, hasn’t socialism worked in Venezuela?”
The response would be delightful and the critical analysis would be refreshing.
jvb
To share, just paste in the URL after your own comments or intro.
It is funny…on a mostly progressive listserve of ethics lawyers, they almost unanimously view Trump’s comments as clumsy litigation strategy. I don’t even think racism has come up…because they are people with brains and integrity.
That’s what I thought it was (a litigation strategy). It would be humiliating to Trump to lose any kind of case at this point so he would naturally make a preemptive attack and do it in his gobbleDonalddegook.
I eschew all so-called “social” media but will ‘widely disseminate’ in publications (there are a few left standing), local radio stations (including NPR), and among individual community leaders. My friends won’t read anything that has Trump’s name in it.
It really doesn’t matter if Donald Trump’s comments were racist or indicate racist tendencies or not. Notwithstanding your well thought out logic in this post, it doesn’t matter at all.
After the media repeats the “racist” label about ten thousand times, or ten million times, between now and November 8th, we will be celebrating the “historic” election of the first woman president of the United States, even though she is one of the most dishonest, unethical, greedy and marginally competent individuals to ever aspire to the office.
Donald Trump is now and always was from the beginning an easy straw man. The media will not have to work very hard or very intelligently or very ethically to take him apart, piece by piece. Nobody will really care how “unfairly” or how “unethically” Donald Trump is treated. He will be reduced to a sad “Tina Fay-like” joke.
And This is just the beginning of the media’s undoing of Donald J. Trump… once upon a time… pretend “presidential candidate.”
It is plain and clear who the traitors are.
Do you really doubt that he’s a racist? He’s an equal opportunity offender, to be sure, but I do think he’s also got racist down pat. I think part of my certainty is the code he uses every so often when he’s semi-coherent and not blathering as usual. My Texan roots show when my ears twist to it. Too many people around me growing up used coded language all the time. Although he’s also such a whackadoodle narcisisst and bully that HE is better than everyone else on the entire planet. But I don’t doubt that he really thinks stereotypes of other races are real and proof he’s right: white is better, and HE is best.
That’s not the issue (I don’t think he thinks in racial terms; at least I’ve seen no evidence of it) though. The issue is what he said. You can’t say what he said was racist because you just know he’s a racist, so what he actually said doesn’t matter.
I fully agree with you on this particular utterance. This was hogwash and idiocy with a racial/ethnic tinge, because he’s that boorish, but not racist. I should have been more specific. I just *do* think he’s racist. And only hides it on varying Thursdays.
Thank-you. Well, then, is it fair and a good percent for everyone to pounce on a non-racist statement because they suspect he really is a racist? Because it’s the statement condemned as racist than then becomes a template to attack others.
Race is not a fixed category; the definition is fluid and has changed throughout the decades in the United States. Indeed, the next Census will probably have “Hispanic” as a racial category, not an ethnic one. It turns out that the “other” race category became the default category for Hispanics, but once Hispanic/Latinx was offered as a race, most Hispanics would choose that instead, especially those of Mexican descent.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/14/u-s-census-looking-at-big-changes-in-how-it-asks-about-race-and-ethnicity/
Honestly: bullshit. Yes, all words and definitions are flexible: that’s a progressive tactic from way back. Race is not a construct: it’s biological reality, and the word has meaning. Mexican is no more a race than Canadian or Irish.
Orwell, that’s all this is. And you are Orwellian to excuse it.
Race is not a construct: it’s biological reality, and the word has meaning. Mexican is no more a race than Canadian or Irish.
Race, especially as constructed in the United States, is not a biological reality. Black, in the United States, for example, can encompass anyone who is 99% European ancestry, and someone who is 1st generation Nigerian, with 100% African ancestry going back a million years. No reason for them to check the same box except for social conventions. Ethnicity, as a genetically inbred regional group, is a reality, sometimes, depending on how isolated the ethnic group has been.
Irish used to occupy it’s own racial category once upon a time, separate and distinct from whiteness. Mulatto used to be a racial category as well. Race is more a matter of taste, culture, and political considerations than any biological DNA testing.
Orwellian. Yes, we know that blacks are foolishly designated onlt by color, and that Obama is no more racially black than white. It doesn’t change the fact that race means race, and you can’t call someone “racist” because they left the “-American” off of “Mexican-American” while describing a white guy’s likely biases.
Orwellian. Yes, we know that blacks are foolishly designated only by color, and that Obama is no more racially black than white. It doesn’t change the fact that race means race, and you can’t call someone “racist” because they left the “-American” off of “Mexican-American” while describing a white guy’s likely biases.
Obama is probably just as black as most “black” people in the United States. His European ancestry is just more recent and acknowledged. But there is a reason most African-Americans are easily distinguished from some of their ancestors in West Africa. The DNA has been thoroughly mixed with European and Native American DNA as well.
So if “race means race”, what does that mean, especially as no one can even agree on the number of races, and where one stops, and where one begins? Where does an ethnic group stop and become a race? If it is biological reality, why do racial categories come in and out of fashion?
Trump was obviously trying to impugn the impartiality of a judge based on the judge’s ethnic background. Bigotry, certainly. Depending on where you draw the line between race and ethnicity, possibly racist as well. *shrugs*
Shrug off calling someone a racist based on a manufactured definition designed as a gotcha for political leverage? Sure, why not? A telling response.
Taking umbrage because I noted there is no hard and fast line between race and ethnicity, so it is isn’t as hard of a line as you are making it out to be? Sure, why not. A telling response.
The two have clear and distinct definitions. Blurring them is politically expedient. That doesn’t make it logical,reasonable, helpful or right. Orwell. And again, one of the Left’s favorite dishonest tactics. Is there a deery race too? Am I now a racist? Why not?
He says, oblivious to the fact that he has on countless occasions previously relied on a hard and fast line on race to make arguments.
This is exactly what I’m talking about deery, you aren’t even consistent with yourself. You will say ANYTHING… Stoop to ANYTHING… To get what you think of as a head up in a discussion.
Race is a social construct. I’ve always maintained that. So is money. So there are some real consequences from the construct of race, which has some reverberations throughout our society. Like money.
You know, if I really cared to, I could spend some time and go back over the last year and gather every instance of hypocrisy…. But I have better things to do. Instead, I’m just going to continue pointing out instances where you’re being an idiot, and let everyone else who reads here draw their own conclusions. Because it’s fun. And faster.
One can see the lawyer coming out in you, Jack, and you make perfect sense on whether T’s observations were “racist” or not. I’m sure others have said similar things but T already displayed his racism currently and years ago, e.g., saying that Mexico’s just ‘sending’ its rapists, murderers, and drug dealers to the U.S.; displaying lists showing (completely incorrect) data about race (black, white – according to T), murderers, and murder victims; ordering all black employees stay in another room while he showed VIPs around new NJ casino; having no black employees in any senior roles in any of his businesses – ever; bringing in Eastern Europeans on visas to fill housekeeping positions in FL (apparently no-one – even black – wants to work in FL in those positions); he has no black friends (actually, it would appear he has no real friends).
So, yes, your statements are correct from a logical perspective but maybe also just a tad disingenuous (and having fun with it!)
The first thing on your list was not racism, but Trump incoherence, as I wrote when he was criticized for THAT speech…which was also falsely portrayed in the press. Opposing illegal immigration is already called racism by activists wanting open borders, all the better to shut down opposition. The other stuff? Trump is certainly not racially sensitive in any way. Whether or not any of these actions were racist is open to debate.
I don’t see disingenuous in any way. If Trump has been guilty of racism elsewhere, then make that case. It is neither fair nor ethical to make up a false case because “we all know he’s racist.” This would be exactly like framing a murderer who authorities know is guilty but can’t prove so for a murder he didn’t commit. Exactly. And because that is a deadly slippery slope, damn right I will call it out as the dangerous, unethical tactic it is.
“Race is not a construct: it’s biological reality, and the word has meaning.”
What is the scientific basis of this claim?
Another question: Were “Irish Need Not Apply” signs not racist? Irish, at the time, were not considered white.
Of course they weren’t racist.
What’s astounding is that the same people who think anyone can be “not white” at will also think they can identify who is being racist under such a floating definition. Racism is the assertion that race makes someone inferior, and for the speaker of a racist comment to be racist, he has to think his comment refers to race. The target doesn’t get to choose whether the statement is racist according to whether he feels white at the time. Trump was obviously talking about ethnicity: he never said that anybody who looks Mexican should be walled off, and he doesn’t believe that. He was talking about people from Mexico, of any race whatsoever. If race is as meaningless as you and deery say, that racism is impossible.
“What is the scientific basis of this claim?”
Biology. I mean… really Chris, with varying degrees of accuracy, people can be grouped into either caucasoid, mongoloid or negeroid ancestry by a 10 year old given a picture of damn near any square inch of someone’s skin. Nevermind things like how people can be positively identified by race with DNA samples, or the existence race-specific afflictions.
“Another question: Were “Irish Need Not Apply” signs not racist? Irish, at the time, were not considered white.”
Racist? No. Stupid? Oh yes.
“Race is not a construct: it’s biological reality, and the word has meaning. ”
Really?? You obviously don’t have a degree in biology or sociology.
http://www.newsweek.com/there-no-such-thing-race-283123
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/science-says-there-no-such-thing-race/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/busting-myths-about-human-nature/201204/race-is-real-not-in-the-way-many-people-think
It’s not ONLY a construct.
Ignoring the distinction between race and ethnicity for the sake of argument, I think there’s a conflict between the following two statements.
“So the anti-Trump forces, which are mighty and legion, decide to shift gears, and rather than attack the statement as a threat to the Constitution, condemn it as ‘racist’.”
…
“I can’t keep track of all of the subsequent statements Trump has made or will make to defend himself”
As I understand, the accusations of racism mostly came out after one of those subsequent statments, and are NOT based on the initial statement. Specifically, in the Wall Street Journal which has the following section. I can’t find the original interview, so it’s certainly possible they are removing relevant context.
In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,” Mr. Trump said.
Which is not racist, and is the ignorance of what constitutes a genuine conflict of interest COMPLETELY unrelated to race, as I wrote. Nor can you find a single quote that suggests that Trump believes Hispanics aren’t “fit to be judges,” as Ryan’s dishonest and dumb statement said
I should have had a disclaimer. I basically agree with you. I just don’t think the quote you provided is the one they are using to claim racism, which makes quoting it irrelevant to the arguments they are actually making. However, as a caveat, I don’t know what sort of posts your facebook friends are making. The only one about it on my feed went back to the interview not the initial statement.
The more recent statement at least actually claims his ethnicity is a source of bias, unlike the first statement which mentioned it in passing.
Jack,
I haven’t read the comments above, so someone may have already addressed this point (and you may have likewise responded to it) but — he has made subsequent comments that further expand out what he said. In interviews afterwards, he directly implied the judge’s Mexican ancestry makes him automatically biased because of Trump’s plan to “build a wall.”
Racist? Well, I suppose that depends on your definition of the term. Needless to say, he implied a(n impartial) arbiter was incapable of being impartial because he, Donald Trump, wants to build a wall and Mexicans are opposed. Except, of course, those that love him. Imagine if someone had attacked Scalia if he’d presided over a mafia case because of his Italian ancestry, or suggesting Thomas should have recused himself during affirmative action cases (oh wait, they have). This line of reasoning makes any judge immediately suspect, since you could point to almost anything as proof of inherent prejudice.
Implying that someone can’t overlook cultural bias (side note: How can he claim Mexicans “love” him while simultaneously claiming THIS Mexican hates him for the same reasons — how does he know this isn’t one of the “good” ones?) to do their job (which, I realize, is a hard concept for someone like Trump to understand) is insulting enough. But, especially so with regard to a judge. As you’ve said before, our justice system depends on judges, of ALL people, to overcome any and all bias. But, in Trump’s world, judges with cultural baggage are incapable of rising above such pettiness and are immediately suspect if they don’t rule in your favor.
Racist? That’s in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. Racially insensitive? Yes. Offensive in the extreme? Most definitely.
-Neil
PS: As a side note, I’d love to hear an independent litigator’s thoughts on his case with regard to how “unfairly” he’s being treated. I realize that can be subjective, but to hear Trump talk about it, he’s been railroaded throughout the entire process. While I have little sympathy for plaintiffs dumb enough to shovel money into anything with Trump’s name on it, it also sounds like they have a strong case (based on my limited perspective). Or, at least one that deserves it day in court
In the extreme? Only if it’s politically advantageous to be offended….like, say, finding “Washington Redskins” offensive “in the extreme.”
If I were the judge in question, I would be extremely offended (or bemused, depending on my outlook). The Mexican comments aside, I can only imagine how infuriating it would be for someone to claim I’m not doing my job over something petty when my accuser is the one acting petty.
Not to mention the anonymous threats and other nonsense Trump has now subjected him to by plastering his name all over everywhere. Because you know his supporters aren’t the most balanced people.
Yes, extremely offensive. That said, you probably don’t understand because you have glasses and can’t read, which is great. People with glasses will love me once I get them all lasik. But you should probably just concede my point. Top commenters agree with me.
Why aren’t people being sued in court for libel and slander; there is plenty of it going around these days. People’s lives are being destroyed with sensless vigilante activism, there are activists out there that are intentionally trying to destroy the lives of those they disagree with and no one is doing a damn thing about it; it’s vigilantism without the bullets and hang-mans ropes.
How long will it be before vigilantism usurps the rule of law and there is open lawless vigilantes wandering our streets dragging people out of their homes to enforcing their will?
I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired!
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/politics/judge-gonzalo-curiel-donald-trump-university/