We are are on the road, and busy completing tasks that amount to the herding of cats, but we could not resist the opportunity to comment on this blown out of proportion “mistake” made by Trump.
We woke up this morning with the entire cast of Morning Joe (Republicans included) saying that Trump’s statement on the judge (Curiel), who ordered the release of company records, which should raise eyebrows. What could have possibly been his motivation? To release documents before a trial is meant to taint the pool and certainly taint public opinion before a trial may be had. But the judge did not release these documents for any legal reason, he did so for political reasons. As he wrote, he released the documents because the integrity of his court was called into question. What he means is, the integrity of his judgement was called into question. How dare someone question his authority!
We cannot defend the precise manner of Trump’s imprecise way he words things. It is not altogether pleasing to the ear when he gets caught up in the progressive/leftist trap as set by Jake Tapper.
Trump asserts that Judge Curiel made a decision unfavorable to him outside the law because he does not agree with Trump’s political position on the wall, which stems from his heritage. Is that racist? Even Fox News is entertaining that slander today. It is being repeated by so-called “conservatives” (a word without distinction anymore), or those on the “right” that Trump is, indeed, a racist. We were regaled with the non sequitur that sports teams that use racial names are, “racist” and it is so obvious even though defenders of Trump do not admit it. If only Cowboys and Raiders knew that they too are being disparaged too!
Good grief. Lost in all this is Curiel’s affiliation with a racial group. All the TV news shows are only speaking of Trump’s “racism” viz. Curiel’s heritage. Nobody remarks how Curiel’s membership in a La Raza organization may influence his legal opinions, especially against a presidential candidate who most threatens his position and status.
Judge Curiel is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyer’s Association. First, this is not the national La Raza association, but that does not stop the SD La Raza Lawyer’s group from endorsing their message, as noted on their webpage here (see the link right). So SD La Raza Lawyer’s group is not the national council, which has a more overt racial message, but considers the national group a part of their “network.” Nice.
Second, it should probably be a reminder that Curiel is a member of group that overtly affirms a specific race in its name. La Raza, is a word that means “The Race.” In other words, race is their identity. Now if one disagrees the word may be translated race, and be translated “Hispanic” which includes all sorts of people of different countries and origins. Fine. It still does not help you even though you try to expand the racial/people pool of your class. La Raza, no matter how you slice it, is a racially focussed organization with the sole aim of advancing one class of people over another based on their ethnic identity.
How is that not racist?
As noted by JAG: “Trump is taking for granted—because he is not blind—that ethnic Democratic judges will rule in the interests of their party and of their ethnic bloc. That’s what they’re supposed to do.” Exactly. The entire Democrat Party is one based on class preferences being meted out to the class in preference whether that be transgendered, minorities (but not Asians), gender (but not men), etc., etc., etc., and for those in the approved class getting goodies and preferences from government in politics and law.
Third, according to the Daily Caller, the SD La Raza group gives scholarships, and did so to an undocumented (aka illegal) immigrant on at least one occasion. Who did that? The organization Curiel belongs as a proud member did that. Is that enough to raise questions about Curiel’s judgement? It should.
In her speeches, she often discussed her “Latina soul” and explained how even the traditional dishes of her Puerto Rican family shaped her views.
And she often said that she hoped those experiences would help her reach better judicial conclusions than someone without such a varied background might reach.
The line was almost identical every time:
‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.’
No one speaks of this blatant form of raciology in which race is the sole consideration for specific talents or benefits granted. Indeed, race is used all the time for progressive ends. Trump is saying, ok, since you want to use race to as an insight into life, then, it can also be a motivation too for ends that violate rights of others. In other words, Trump is simply calling out the left on their own form of racism by saying race matters if you say so, but it does not make one wise. If race matters, and it matters in all things, then it also matters in legal opinions set by those who believe race matters.
In all the Trump hysteria, which has caught up Newt Gingrich too (who quickly became a “Me Too”), we ought to remember the fissure opens up the great issue of rights based on Nature, and does so to resurrect the consideration of justice colorblind.
Harry Jaffa once said to a small group of us that (paraphrasing) there is racial power on the right, and racial power on the left, and in the middle justice gets hammered. In other words, racial claims on the right and the left are really augmented uses of power for its own sake. That does violence to the Laws of Nature. Both, however, left and right, are the same. There is no divide between them except over the preferences they use to bolster their political aims. In this way, right and left are no different.
But Trump is not a man of the right on race. He is merely exposing the right is just as racially bankrupt as the left. Nowhere has this been revealed more than in people I know who more and more agree with the left on race.
Jaffa was right.
Harry Neumann, used to say that the issue is not necessarily left v. right but about affirmation of ALL Values. In other words, the modern condition is to tolerate everything, and that is nihilism. Nowhere is intolerance noted more, though, then when the nihilist is confronted with his own nihilism. Neumann would say that they have not thought through the meaning of their own positions, and hence become angry when so confronted. Indeed, when confronted, they are more apt to use power to put into effect their own will. We might reference the appropriate Nietzsche passage here, but our books are packed.
Trump is the unmasker of nihilists. And everyone from Joe (MSNBC) to CNN, to Fox, demonstrated their shallow understanding of their own “values” (much less the meaning the Union) when reporting on this story. Their preference is not toleration or affirmation when thought through, but an insidious form of intolerance and power politics.
So much for the colorblind society.