Taking back a Trump endorsement is pointless
Yet Trumps behavior toward Curiel, appalling as it is, is not a reason for Republicans to reject him as their nominee at their
convention
Ramesh Ponnuru
Donald Trumps criticism of Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is presiding over a lawsuit charging Trump University with fraud, wasnt an attack on judicial independence. It was an attack on the idea of justice itself.
Politicians can criticize judges, even in ignorant and demagogic ways, without posing a threat to the courts ability to render decisions that follow the law. Barack Obama was accused of undermining judicial independence when he expressed opposition to the Supreme Courts decision in Citizens United. But Obama wasnt threatening official reprisals against judges who make decisions with which he disagrees. Neither is Trump. The only implicit threat he is making is that as president he would react to an adverse decision by Judge Curiel with more bluster. The judge has withstood worse.
Its the specific terms of Trumps argument that run counter to our system of justice. Trump says that his immigration proposals, including building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, will help the country as a whole, including Hispanics. Nevertheless, most Hispanics oppose Trump strongly. Hence Curiel has a conflict of interest, which has manifested in decisions against Trump. He should, Trump has said, recuse himself or be investigated.
Trumps lawyers have won some motions and lost some in front of the judge. They have not sought a recusal, and have praised Curiels handling of the case. So Trumps complaint seems neither serious nor credible.
The complaint is, however, sweeping in its implications. Curiel may indeed oppose Trumps wall: Being Hispanic raises the likelihood that he does; being an Obama appointee raises it still more. The accusation that because he may disagree with Trump about politics he cannot be an impartial judge is a large and slanderous leap from that possibility. If Trumps argument is right, it doesnt just call into question Hispanics fitness for the bench. It means that judicial decisions cannot be respected if they occur in a society that is riven by strong political disagreements -- a society such as ours.
To Trumps defenders, what he is saying is not all that different from what Justice Sonia Sotomayor said before she joined the Supreme Court. I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnt lived that life, she said, an obnoxious comment that excludes her from the category of wise Latinas. But the right parallel isnt between Trump and the liberal justice. Its between him and the black radicals of the 1960s and 1970s, for example, who said they could not get a fair trial in our country.
Trump is making a poisonous accusation, one that he will not make his lawyers follow up, to contain the public-relations damage from credible charges that his university was a scam. Its extremism in defense of self-interest.
Yet Trumps behavior toward Curiel, appalling as it is, is not a reason for Republicans to reject him as their nominee at their convention.
Bloomberg
